Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GAS
Henri Paradowski
Andre Le-Gall & Benoit Laflotte
Gas Processing Department
Technip,
92973 Paris La Défense, CEDEX
France
ABSTRACT
As a result of the growth of the natural gas market, worldwide NGL production capacity has increased strongly and
continuously in the last decades and this tendency is expected to continue for some years. NGL recovery activity seems
to be driven by its own market forces with a growth rate surpassing that of natural gas.
EPC contractors such as Technip have an important role to play in finding cost effective solutions for the NGL business.
Technip has a policy of studying solutions to identify those that best meet the requirements of reliability, efficiency and
capital cost. Big improvements have been achieved by moving away from so-called standard practice and through
process development studies.
There are many options for the different steps of NGL production; in this paper we will compare alternative routes for
selected steps:
The underlying experience comes from many LSTK projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.
© Gastech 2005
COMPARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS
INTRODUCTION
As a major EPC Contractor, Technip has been involved in the conception, design, construction and initial operation of
many large size gas treatment and NGL recovery plants over the last forty years.
In several instances follow-up contracts were executed for the same Client, either as debottlenecking projects1 or
new capacity additions, therefore providing first-hand access to operating experience. The lessons learnt from past
projects give the Contractor a powerful tool for the development of improved solutions that are of benefit to its Clients.
This paper focuses on specific aspects of NGL recovery units where the Contractor can bring a significant input.
The present paper is focused on NGL recovery from natural gas. In the analysis of the market drivers, a distinction
should be made between ethane and LPG (propane, butanes and mixed LPG).
Ethane value is exclusively related to its potential use as cracker feedstock, and therefore its extraction is only
considered in the general framework of a downstream petrochemical development. In other cases, ethane has only fuel
value.
The world LPG market has seen a significant market growth in the last decades, with an average growth of 2.9% per
year over the past ten years and a current worldwide production of over 210 million tonnes. This average growth is
slightly higher than the corresponding growth in natural gas production, and nearly twice the average crude oil
production growth.
The main drivers for LPG growth worldwide are the residential/commercial sector and uses as petrochemical
feedstock, with significant regional disparities.
About 60% of world LPG production originates from natural gas, and this is the dominant source in North America,
Northern Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
To illustrate the market driven nature of NGL production, Figure 12 compares the average North American spot prices
for natural gas (Henry Hub), propane and n-butane (Mount Belvieu). All product prices are referred to their calorific
value.
1
“Increasing NGL Plant capacity”, H. Paradowski, L. Barthe and D. Gadelle, GPA European Chapter, Heidelberg Sept. 2003
2
Adapted from EIA / Barnes and Click
Propane Butane
7
Natural gas
3
1
janv-97
avr-97
nov-97
févr-98
janv-00
nov-00
févr-01
avr-02
janv-03
nov-03
juil-96
déc-95
mai-00
mars-96
oct-96
août-97
juin-98
juil-99
sept-98
déc-98
mars-99
oct-99
août-00
juin-01
juil-02
sept-01
déc-01
oct-02
mai-03
août-03
mars-04
juin-04
sept-04
déc-04
Sources: EIA / Barnes and Click
Although this approach could be accused of oversimplification, the comparison suggests that there is a market
incentive to extract the LPG, except for limited periods of time (winter 2000, winter 2003). More detailed studies indicate
that the extraction of LPG in North America3 and in Northern Europe4 show positive margins. This situation translates into
significant margins in areas of cheap natural gas from which LPG can be sold at market price.
To sustain this current and projected market growth, several larger size gas treatment / NGL production projects
have been scheduled or implemented such as the NGL-4 and Dolphin Projects in Qatar, Berri debottlenecking in Saudi
Arabia, OGD-3/AGD-2/Ruwais-3 projects in UAE, the Western Libya Gas Project and the Ohanet project in Algeria among
others.
Additional NGL will be produced in a number of LNG plants that are under implementation or at various project
stages.
3
“Uncertainty about gas quality could delay US LNG imports”, D.J. Hawkins , OGJ Sept. 20, 2004
4
“North Sea Gas Processing Margins”, Purvin & Getz, GPA European Chapter, London Nov. 2004
From wellhead to consumer, each of the products to be valorised has to be extracted, purified and transported.
The typical line-up of a sales gas and NGL production chain includes:
Gas sweetening (H2S, CO2, other sulphur compounds if appropriate) with associated sulphur recovery, if required,
Gas dehydration,
LPG (and/or ethane) purification to the required specification, storage and export,
Depending on the nature of the raw natural gas, and in particular, on the amount of contaminants present from the
reservoir, an optimised line-up has to be developed.
A simple gas plant, based on lean natural gas and producing LPG might be limited to a few processing steps (glycol
dehydration, LPG recovery). More complex feedstock will require additional processing steps and leave room for more
complex engineering developments. Typically, optimisation issues are focused around:
• Selection of the acid gas removal process (type of solvent, H2S vs. CO2 selectivity, requirement to remove
other sulphur compounds...),
• Optimisation of the NGL recovery unit to best match the required level of product recovery, flexibility (ethane
recovery vs. ethane rejection) and operability constraints,
• Selection of NGL product purification schemes, including handling of by-products such as disulphide oil in the
case of caustic washing of LPG in the liquid phase to remove mercaptans, or regeneration gas handling
should gas phase removal of mercaptans be selected.
Such situations are commonly encountered in the Middle East and in the Caspian area, where raw gases are
generally wet and sour. Similar situations exist, to a lesser extent in, Africa and South East Asia. All of them pose
significant challenges to the process designer making each gas treatment and NGL recovery plant unique.
A second factor that makes each gas plant unique is the relative location of the gas field vis-à-vis the export facilities
and the targeted market of each of the products. There are few similarities between the issues to be resolved for a
straddle plant, located close to a petrochemical complex and a gas treatment plant in a remote producing area, as
encountered for instance in Saudi Arabia and in Abu Dhabi.
The gas field geographical location offers additional challenges to the project developers and the engineering
companies. The Western Libya Gas Project offers a significant example of these complex issues5.
The Western Libya Gas Project valorises gas and oil from the Wafa Desert field (located 500 km inland) and gas from
the Bahr Essalam field located 100 km offshore. The final products are sales gas, stabilized crude oil, stabilized
condensate, butanes and propane. The majority of the gas is exported to Italy by pipeline.
Three gas-processing plants have been built to achieve the project objectives:
1. The Wafa Desert Plant pretreats the oil and gas feedstock to allow pipeline transportation to shore where the
final extraction and treatment is performed. The options selected for the Wafa Desert Plant are oil and gas
condensate stabilisation, CO2 removal, gas dehydration and LPG extraction using a cryogenic process. All
liquids are commingled and transported to shore through a 16” pipeline. The sweet gas that has been
conditioned for transport (water and hydrocarbon dew-point) is compressed and sent to the coast through a
32” pipeline.
2. The Mellitah Plant receives gas and condensate separately from the offshore field. Gas is treated to remove
H2S and CO2 and is then dehydrated. Part of the LPG is removed and treated. Condensates from the
condensate pipeline and the gas pipeline slug catchers are stabilized.
3. Gas from Wafa Desert is mixed at the Wafa Coastal Plant with the gas from the Mellitah Plant and is
compressed for export. The liquids from Wafa Desert are fractionated at the Wafa Coastal Plant to yield
stabilised crude oil, butane and propane that are shipped separately.
5
ENI web site, Investor Relations, October 2004
In the remainder of this paper, we will illustrate examples of process options that may be considered when
developing a gas processing plant line-up. We will compare alternative routes, supported with calculations, for the
following steps:
The studies use open art and Technip proprietary technologies. The underlying experience comes from many LSTK
projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.
The following tables provide in one block the basis of the different studies.
Problem definition
When natural gas is processed in an NGL recovery unit the water content has to be decreased whether to avoid the
formation of hydrates or to decrease the amount of hydrates formed and the size of the hydrates particles so that the
hydrates will not accumulate and plug the equipment. It is known that hydrates formed at very low temperatures in small
quantities will not stick to the walls of heat exchangers, valves and other equipment and that they do not plug
equipment. It is also known that hydrates can accumulate in dead end zones, where the velocity is reduced. Some
devices such as strainers or mesh pads can stop the hydrates crystals and allow a plug to build up.
Given that 0.1 ppm is a typical molecular sieve outlet gas specification for water content it can be observed from
Table 4 that in deep NGL recovery processes where the temperature reaches –100°C it is not possible to avoid the
formation of hydrates. However, the quantity that is formed when the water content is 0.1 ppm is extremely small
i.e. 0.07 kg/h, or 600 kg/year.
Mol sieve dehydration units may be troublesome in operation; many problems that have been reported relate to the
process design. A short list includes:
• Carry over of liquids, water, hydrocarbons, causing caking of the adsorbent on the upper part of the bed and
near the walls of the vessel;
• Presence of volatile basic compounds in the gas to be dried, these compounds can be production chemicals
or can come from the acid gas removal unit located upstream;
• Presence of cations in the gas; the zeolites can be destroyed by an ion exchange process.
• Refluxing phenomena occurring during regeneration of the adsorbent: the water formed on the walls will
flow on the walls of the vessel and will damage the mole sieves by creating a “cake”;
• The MS “binder” can be damaged during regeneration; the resulting phenomena would be the creation of
dust, increased pressure drop and crushing of the pellets;
This list is not exhaustive, but gives a feel of the many potential problems in operation. To minimize them the design
has be done with care. We, as a contractor, would concentrate our efforts on the following:
• Design of the unit and its auxiliary systems by the contractor. It should not be considered as a “black box”:
avoid packaged units, or strictly control the sub-contractor.
• Use efficient upstream separation of liquids, but avoid creating mists which are very often the result of high
shear stress;
• Use simple regeneration sequences with a ramping up of regeneration gas temperature; this will help to
avoid or reduce the “refluxing” phenomena; this shall be specified to the vendor;
• Select the mol sieves and not the mol sieve vendor carefully: type, size of pellets, “binder”; it is important to
have a precise specification.
TEG dehydration
Process design
Natural gas dehydration with TEG is a very simple process. Lean TEG is contacted with gas in a column using
structured packing. The TEG water content is in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 % wt of water. This means that the
regeneration of the rich TEG has to be performed using dry gas stripping at least.
This process has lower CAPEX and OPEX when compared to molecular sieves.
There are also fewer maintenance and operational issues, so that a TEG unit can easily be installed on an
offshore platform.
There are some design issues and the contractor shall be familiar with TEG technology to avoid mistakes with
potentially disastrous consequences, especially offshore where it is very difficult to add or modify equipment.
• Design of outlet separators to minimize losses of TEG by carry over; one has to remember that the melting
point of pure TEG is –5°C so that it is very easy to freeze TEG in a cold separation unit.
Lean TEG water content, which is related to the efficiency of gas stripping;
The temperature of the gas at the inlet of the absorber: precooling is very efficient way to obtain low water
content in the dry gas.
The number of stages and hence the efficiency of the packing selected: this efficiency depends on packing
type, bed height and the quality of liquid and gas distributors;
These parameters are the result of choices made by the contractor with the support of reliable vendors of the
column internals.
Problem definition
The study of the market for NGL has shown that there is no doubt about the profitability of propane, butane, and
C5+ recovery from natural gas. The quantities available have to be such that the cost of infrastructure is not too
important.
For ethane recovery the situation is complicated because of the absence of a worldwide market for ethane. Many
operators have come to the conclusion that ethane recovery does not pay or at best it is seen as a future possibility. In
countries where the government has future objectives for an ethane based petrochemical industry, many ERUs have
been built for ethane recovery and rejection, but most of them have been operated in ethane rejection.
The process licensors of NGL recovery processes may advertise that the cost of the unit is not much affected by this
choice, the reality of a project including infrastructure is different: ethane recovery has a very significant impact on
CAPEX and OPEX.
When the recovery of ethane is seen as a future possibility, it is possible to build a propane recovery unit with
provisions made for future conversion to ethane recovery.
The way this can be implemented is not so much a function of the process selected: all the processes use similar if
not identical features and differ by details. It is the Contractor’s duty to allocate space in the lay out, accessibility, utility
connections, etc…
© Gastech 2005 Paradowski 10
Constant Ethane Production with variable Feed Gas
Each case is specific so that it is quite impossible to give the solution. A problem that is met in Europe is that gas
usage and production are variable. In winter the demand for gas is high, while in summer it is low. Underground gas
storage is not able to avoid seasonal variations completely.
This situation had to be considered for the ethane recovery unit designed in 1985 and built in 1987 in Lacq, France.
As the ethane was feeding an ethylene plant, its production was required to be as constant as possible, whereas gas
production was expected to fluctuate between winter and summer despite the use of the Lusagnet underground gas
storage facility.
• Case study
We studied a similar but hypothetical case where the gas design capacity of the ERU is 800 MMSCFD (see Tables 1.1
and 1.2) i.e. 40,000 kgmoles/h. The targeted ethane production is 400 kt/yr or slightly less than 50 t/h.
With an ethane content in the feed gas of 5.5% mole, the required ethane recovery rate is 72.4% and the
production of pure C2 is 47.9 t/h in 50t/h of C2+ NGL. With this moderate extraction rate the “Single Reflux Ethane”
recovery process shown in Figure 3 is the more efficient choice. The Demethanizer column C1 is operated at 25 bars abs.
The sales gas compressor requires 23,600 kW of brake horsepower and could be driven by a GE5C or GE5D gas
turbine or a VFD electric motor.
Now we consider what happens when seasonal variations in gas demand cause variations in feedstock of 600, 700
and 800 MMSCFD for summer, spring and winter respectively. The ethane recovery rate must now be variable and high
in summer. To meet these objectives the “Dual Reflux Ethane” recovery process is chosen.
The power available from the sales gas compressor drivers is used to maintain ethane production constant during
periods of reduced natural gas throughput.
The following figures show the main characteristics of the resultant ERU at 800, 700, and 600 MMSCFD.
60 bar
K1 K2 GT
T1 34°C
25 bars
E2 -94°C
C1
E1
V1
Feed gas -34°C
60 bar 129,700 kg/h
800 MMSCFD
NGL (C2+)
60 bar
K1 K2 GT
T1
25 bars
E2 -99°C
C1
E1
V1
Feed gas -34°C
60 bar 121,200 kg/h
700 MMSCFD
NGL (C2+)
60 bar
K1 K2 GT
T1
25 bars
E2 -102°C
C1
E1
V1
Feed gas -34°C
60 bar 109,500 kg/h
600 MMSCFD
NGL (C2+)
• Process optimisation
As understanding of the thermodynamics of NGL recovery have improved, new processes have been developed.
Technip was granted a patent in 2003 for a Multiple Reflux Ethane recovery process. This process, through the addition
of a vessel V2 makes it possible to increase the ethane recovery rate at constant power consumption.
60 bar
K1 K2 GT
T1
25 bars
E2 -100°C
C1
E1
V1
Feed gas -34°C V2
60 bar 123,400 kg/h
700 MMSCFD
NGL (C2+)
The following study therefore considers how to vary ethane recovery while keeping the propane recovery rate at
99% or at least at more than 95%. To simplify the discussion we shall consider that the feed gas flow rate is constant.
Four main options were identified for study that differ in terms of CAPEX, OPEX and operability:
Option 1: Recover C2+ at a constant rate from the feed gas; fractionate C2+ into C2 and C3+, re-inject
excess C2 into the sales gas upstream of compression,
Option 3: Switch from a high C2+ recovery scheme to a C3+ recovery scheme in a bi-modal unit,
Option 4: Change operating conditions in a scheme built for the purpose of variable ethane recovery and
high propane recovery.
• Option 4: Slowly adjust parameters to gradually switch from C2 recovery scheme to C3 recovery
scheme
This option is also very simple in principle and robust. Skilled operators and good production scheduling are less
critical. Compared to a C2 recovery scheme, it requires additional equipment and valves. The CAPEX is higher than option
3 but it has better OPEX . There is no decrease of propane production. Today this option could be used on projects
requiring high flexibility.
Observation
The NGL extracted from the natural gas has to be fractionated to produce the following commercial products:
Iso-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market, mainly in the USA
N-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market as butane.
Stabilised C5+ cut, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market.
NGL fractionation uses simple principles but consumes large amounts of energy for the reboiling of the fractionation
columns, about 300 kW.h / t of NGL or around 3% on an auto consumption basis.
Taking for example the fractionation unit built in Eastern Venezuela by the Technip group in the 90’s and with reference
to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 the details are the following:
These techniques can be future improved with the recovery of waste heat from an external source such as gas
turbine exhaust gases if available close to the fractionation unit.
The first two approaches are compared with reboiling using pressurized hot water produced in a direct-fired heater.
integration
NGL Feed
245 t/h
C3
NGL Feed
245 t/h
G 14 MW
150°C 5 bar abs
Preheaters Reboilers
Comparison of solutions
Table 9 compares the merits of three configurations that are:
Reference case: No integration and use of hot water for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater.
Process heat integration (DeC4/C4 Splitter) and use of hot oil for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater,
Cogeneration.
The options are ranked in Table 9: 1 for the best, 2 for the second, 3 for the last
No integration Process
Scheme Cogeneration
(Reference) integration
Highest column bottom temperature (°C) 125 170 125
Heating medium Hot water Hot oil LP steam
Fuel consumption (kW) 88000 88000 88000
Electrical power production (kW) 0 0 14000
Efficiency 2 2 1
CAPEX 1 2 3
OPEX 2 2 1
Operability 2 1 3
Safety 1 3 2
Reliability 2 1 3
Table 9. Comparison of NGL Fractionation Unit Energy Supply Schemes
No integration Process
Scheme Cogeneration
(Reference) integration
1 3 2
Table 10: Adaptabilty to use with GT exhaust WHRU
The comparison in Table 9 would remain valid but in this case hot water would be the best heating medium.
Concluding remarks
The increase of the cost of energy makes it necessary to reconsider the cogeneration alternative. Even without gas
turbines the cogeneration option is attractive.
For small inventories of LPG, pressurized storage may be used, but indisputably, the most delicate storage is
refrigerated storage at atmospheric pressure, required when LPG has to be stored in large quantities. This is the case for
LNG Plants, or for large gas treatment plants treating rich feedstock.
In addition to the refrigeration required to compensate for heat ingress through the tank’s insulation, chilling must be
provided to cool the LPG before sending it to the tanks.
In this case study, we have considered and compared three options for the cooling of propane run-down and
subsequent storage.
o Closed Loop system with vacuum conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor
o Closed Loop system with the refrigeration compressor suction above atmospheric pressure
o Semi-open loop with conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor at atmospheric pressure
Propane
8.5 bar
BOG
2.4 bar 1.3 t/h
0.7 bar
Propane
Rundown
160 t/h
Propane
8.9 bar
BOG
2.7 bar 10 t/h
1.0 bar
Propane
Rundown
160 t/h
The main advantage of this solution is the cancellation of the previous boil-off gas recovery system and start up from
atmospheric pressure without flaring, thereby leading to a reduction in CAPEX. Such a system has been recently
implemented by Technip in an LNG Plant.
© Gastech 2005 Paradowski 19
Comparison of solutions
Table 11 ranks the three options against operational and investment criteria.
CONCLUSION
NGL recovery from natural gas is an industry that brings together different processes, types of equipment and
multiple operating constraints. NGL projects require constant innovation and adaptation of technology to solve complex
problems. Although licensed technologies have an important place, the nature of the NGL industry leaves less room for
licensed technologies than in refining or petrochemicals.
An EPC Contractor such as Technip, that has maintained its technical capability to evaluate the consequences of the
choices, has an important role to play at least during the EPC phase. Project execution plans which adopt design
competition principles up to EPC award are an interesting alternative to the widely used prescriptive FEED route to EPC.
Clients that have adopted a design competition approach have obtained improved plant designs with reduced schedules.
A comparison of solutions by EPC contractors under the pressure of competition is the best way to obtain a clear view of
the situation. Such clients have come to accept that the necessity of competition makes it mandatory to leave some
major choices open until the end of the design competition.
• A good understanding of the Client’s objectives and requirements is necessary. It is a starting point to develop
solutions. Many options are available, have been used on previous jobs, or are being developed to enhance
profitability.
• Understand the requirements: the requirements on the quality of the products are many times expressed in terms of
a minimum specification: for example C2/C3 < 0.01; then nobody wonders about what if C2/C3=0.005; what is the
benefit if any. Many times surpassing the minimum can be easy, not costly and bring far better operability.
• Compare solutions using life cycle cost: Whatever the energy cost, the main and best criteria for selection remains
the minimum overall cost to the operator. The only possibility to bring more resilient solutions back into the
competition is to make comparisons based on life cycle cost. As large as some gas reserves may seem to be, they
are of course limited and the cost of the feed gas at plant inlet is never negligible.
• Operability comes first: Flaring costs a fortune and gives a poor image of the industry; producing less than expected
can jeopardize months of optimisation. It is very difficult to put figures on operability but it is a prime factor that can
only be taken into account by experienced and qualified engineers and plant operators. Today the situation is such
that managers that have a limited experience of plant operation make decisions that do not take the operability
factor with sufficient consideration. The liquefied gases industry is beginning to evaluate the consequences of the
© Gastech 2005 Paradowski 20
lack of qualified technical personnel and is trying to find solutions to mitigate the phenomena, at a time when many
senior engineers and operators are leaving or have already left.
• In the same way proven technologies are not necessarily old fashioned and shall be allowed to compete as well.
• Experience is not frozen knowledge; it is a practically based starting point that can be useful in evaluating new
technologies.
Methodology
Methodology is of course of prime importance but it has to be specifically defined for each new projects.
During the execution of a contract after the first weeks, difficulties may show up, sometimes it is not very easy to
have the process licensor involved at this stage. Problem solving methods based on a comparison of options similar to
those presented in this paper should be used from the very beginning.