More than pumps...
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Engineering Solutions
WE OFFER
CUSTOM LIQUID RING
VACUUM PACKAGES
• Fully customized systems-
"No Requirement Too Cbmp/ex"
' Systems built to a full range of
industry specifications, induding
mdard, customized, and hybrid
systems, consisting of steam
electors, mechanical boosters
and vacuum condensers
VACUUM AND PRESSURE
for PROCESS PERFORMANCE
• extensive technology portfolio
• global applications expertise
• project management
• "safety first" approach
EDWARDS
800-848-9800
www.bocedwards.com
Profitability of process
optimization
Overall, I agree with the contents of
the article "Assessing profitability of real-
time optimization" (June 2004). However,
two factors missing ftom the discussion
on "factors necessary to make a particular
process a good candidate for RTO" are:
refinery management commitment and
necessary infrastructure to keep the RTO
applications running.
As the article indicates, an RTO appli-
cation influences decision making in dif-
ferent groups in a refinery {operations,
APC, production planning) that are tra-
ditionally not well integrated. Refinery
needs to have an RTO "champion" to
keep the applications running; manage-
ment support is essential. An RTO appli-
cation needs not just long-term model
maintenance (result of unit configura-
tion/operational changes) but also good
IT, instrumentation support to keep it
running. These two factors are even mote
critical in today's challenging environment
since they requite additionalfinancialand
personnel resources.
Mr. Beautyman makes an impor-
tant point on choosing the appropriate
optimization "level" to minimize costs.
There has been a tendency to make the
RTO application models as complex as
possible without analyzing implications
on implementation costs and long-term
maintenance. Sometimes modeling every
detail and equipment adds up to the cost
without substantially adding to the ben-
efits. The pte-project audit is important
for defining an "optimum" scope for the
application.
Hemant Pandit
Business Manager
Performance Programs Axens NA
1800 St.James Place, #515
Houston, TX 77056
E-mail: HPandit@axensna.com
H2S and CO2 in TEG
In "New charts estimate acid gas sol-
ubility in TEG" (January 2004) by E.
Wichert and G.C. Wichert, charts are pre-
sented to estimate solubilities of H2S and
CO2 in TEG that would assist in emis-
Select 83 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
editorial@HydrocarbonProces5inq.com
sions calculations.
However, the charts do not take into
account the flow rate of TEG relative to
the H2S/GO2 inlet rate. It is well known
that the amount of H2S, CO2 and, for
that mattet, benzene, is proportional to
the amount of TEG circulated. As such,
one can minimize the amount of these
compounds by using lower circulation
rates along with more trays, all else being
equal.
These charts are based on experimental
data, likely from an equilibrium cell, and
I have found that they over-estimate the
H2S absorbed when compared to com-
mercial simulators and the GRI program
GLYCALC, based on actual dehydration
unit measurements.
As a result, the charts should be used
with caution such that they represent the
uppet limit of H2S/CO2 absorption, and
that actual values, which depend on rela-
tive rates of the contaminants versusTEG,
may be substantially lower.
Wayne Monnery, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Author's reply
The charts referred to by Dr. Mon-
nety are based on experimental data of
Reference 1 of the article. This data was
developed at equilibrium saturations in a
laboratory apparatus.
Under operating conditions in a glycol
absorber, the tri-ethylene glycol cascades
down eight ot mote bubblecap trays. Since
only a N&iy small portion o\ the CO2 and
the H2S is absorbed, the glycol is exposed
to the entire partial pressure of each com-
ponent, from the top to the bottom of the
glycol absorber. Under such conditions,
the glycol would be at or very close to full
saturation with these compounds, com-
mercial simulators not withstanding.
E. Wichert
Corrections
In the atticle "Visualize facility stor-
age tank capacity" (June 2003), Fig. 1 is
incorrectly labeled. It should read "Safe
capacity of storage tanks at different con-
tent conditions." HP apologizes for any
inconveniences this may have caused.