LNG/GAS PROCESSING DEVELOPMENTS SPECIALREPORT

Select optimal schemes

for gas processing plants
Careful process evaluation helps meet
product requirements and environmental standards
M. MALEKI and M. KHORSAND MOVAGHAR,
Energy Industries Engineering and Design Co., Tehran, Iran

G
as processing plants are an essen-
tial part of the energy industry
and provide one of the cleanest-
burning fuels and a valuable chemical feed-
stock. The importance and complexity of
gas processing plants have increased over
the years due to their use as a feedstock
source and their integration with petro-
chemical plants.
Important factors that drive the pro-
cess selection and design of gas process-
ing plants are environmental and safety
regulations, capital and operating costs,
and process efficiency. Therefore, selecting
an optimized process scheme during the
project feasibility study is vital to ensure
that the project is technically feasible, cost-
effective and profitable.
gas treating of the feed gas using amine
is necessary. The amine unit is designed
for total H2S removal and total or partial
CO2 removal. This article will investigate
the reason for partial CO2 removal, which
is no longer required due to the recent
advances in sulfur recovery technology
used in gas processing plants, including
South Pars gas plants.
Partial CO2 removal scheme. Over
a span of 20 years, the process design of
each gas processing plant has been modi-
fied to some extent. The main reasons for
the changes are more stringent environ-
mental regulations for newer projects and
higher ethane purities required for petro-
chemical plants.
The original scheme designed to meet
the product specifications from a sour
feed containing high concentrations of
H2S, CO2 and mercaptans is depicted in
Fig. 1.
The gas processing facility has a feed gas
treating unit (GTU) using amine for total
H 2S removal and partial CO 2 removal.
The facility also includes utilities, offsites
and necessary infrastructure. The functions
of the main process units can be summa-
rized as follows:
• Feed reception and gas/liquid separa-
tion
• Total H2S removal and partial CO2
removal from gas
• Dehydration using molecular sieve
technology

PROCESS SCHEME SELECTION

The process selection study usually Flue gas
begins with a design basis to specify the
general configuration of the plant and its Incinerator
outline requirements. These requirements
consist of: Claus unit Sales gas
Sales gas
• Feed characteristics, especially H2S, Sulfur compressor
CO2 and mercaptan concentrations
• Product specifications, including Ethane
Reception Gas treating Dehydration Ethane treatment Ethane
maximum concentrations of sulfur and facilities unit (with unit recovery unit with DEA
CO2 in the products. MDEA) and drying
The criteria to be optimized for the pro-
cess scheme selection include: C3 liquid
Gas condensate NGL C3 treatment
• Environmental and safety compli- stabilization fractionation and drying
ance with local regulations for effluents
from incinerators, flare stacks, wastewater
treatment, etc. C4 treatment
and drying
• Flexibility and performance
C4 liquid
• Cost
• Energy consumption. Stabilized condensate
The maximum H 2 S concentration
allowed in the sales gas is 4–5 parts per FIG. 1 Original scheme for sour gas treating plant.
million by volume (ppmv); therefore,

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2012

I 61
SPECIALREPORT LNG/GAS PROCESSING DEVELOPMENTS

• Ethane recovery for production of • Lower sulfur content requirement in nolamine (DEA) generally provide maxi-
sales gas and gaseous ethane propane and butane products. mum CO2 concentrations of 100 ppmv
• NGL separation for production of This article investigates the best pro- in the treated gas.
liquid C3, C4 and gas condensate cess scheme for the new conditions and Changes in the sulfur recovery unit.
• Sales gas export compression compares total CO2 and H2S removal for The acid gases (H2S and CO2 ) removed
• Sulfur recovery the GTU vs. partial CO2 removal. It also in the amine unit are sent to the SRU.
• Ethane treatment for CO2 removal examines the impact of this change on The SRU is based on the modified Claus
and drying. other units in the plant. process for recovering elemental sulfur
Gas treating unit. The GTU uses from acid gas. The chemistry of reac-
Restrictions affect design. New amine for H 2 S and CO 2 removal. tions involved in the Claus process may
environmental standards have influenced Although we assume that readers are famil- be described in a simplified form with
product specifications and have led to iar with amines, it is important to note the following two equations: the first is
changes in the gas plant design. The main that three types of amines are already used a simple combustion of one-third of the
changes that have altered the design are: in most gas refineries, as summarized in hydrogen sulfide; the second is the reac-
• Improved sulfur recovery efficiency Table 1.1, 2 tion of SO2 produced with the remaining
in the sulfur recovery unit (SRU), result- When the GTU is designed for total two-thirds of H2S, according to the fol-
ing in less sulfur being burned in the H 2 S and CO 2 removal, normally the lowing reactions:3
incinerator CO2 can be reduced to less than 5 ppmv. H2S + 3/2 O2 t SO2 + H2O – 519
• Lower CO2 content requirement in However, because of design limitations, kJ/mole (–124 kcal/mole)
the ethane product guaranteed figures using generic dietha- 2 H2S + SO2 t 3/n Sn + 2 H2O – 143
kJ/mole (–34 kcal/mole)
TABLE 1. Amine technology process capabilities Feed gas composition. The acid gas
from the GTU regenerator column consists
Amine Features Regeneration duty of H2S and CO2 that is fed to the Claus
Diethanolamine: • DEA is for complete H2S and CO2 removal. High unit. The Claus process efficiency is largely
(DEA)2HN(CH2CH2OH)2 • Yields low degradation products and corrosion rates. dependent on the H2S/CO2 ratio, and it is
MDEA: CH3N(C2H4OH)2 • Used selectively for deep H2S removal, with only Low difficult to maintain at a high value when
moderate CO2 removal. the H2S content in the acid gas drops below
• Yields significantly low degradation products and 36%–40%. This difficulty is due to the fol-
corrosion rates.
lowing factors:
Activated MDEA • Used for complete CO2 removal; H2S removal also Low • CO2 is an inert gas that dilutes the
(aMDEA) occurs due to enhanced reaction kinetics.
process gas and, consequently, reduces the
• High-performance solvent with reduced energy
requirements, high acid loadings, minimal corrosivity
conversion efficiency by lowering the par-
and negligible degradation products. tial pressure of reactants. Furthermore, in
the reaction furnace (where the thermal
Claus reaction takes place), the conversion
Flue gas efficiency is limited due to resulting low
flame temperature.
Incinerator
• The low H2S content may present
challenges to sustaining the flame in the
Acid gas
Claus unit
Tail gas reaction furnace, where only one-third of
enrichment treatment the acid gas should be burned to achieve
Sales gas
Sulfur the stoichiometric H2S-to-SO2 ratio of 2
Regeneration required by the Claus reaction.
Sales gas gas treatment
compressor with DEA • Carbon dioxide may react with a sul-
fur species to form carbonyl sulfide (COS)
Ethane and carbon disulfide (CS2) or a dissociate,
Gas treating treatment Ethane
Reception Dehydration Ethane which may result in reduction of the overall
unit (with with DEA
facilities unit recovery unit
MDEA) and drying sulfur recovery, unless adequate precautions
are taken for the design of the reaction fur-
C3 liquid
nace and the catalytic converters.
Gas condensate NGL C3 treatment • Due to the above reasons, limitations
stabilization fractionation and drying
in the Claus process on the maximum
CO2 content require a ratio of 60:40 for
C4 treatment CO2:H2S for the acid gas from the GTU.
and drying Lower H2S concentrations can be accepted
C4 liquid using special measures (such as enriched air
Stabilized condensate and fuel gas co-firing), but at the expense of
lower conversion efficiencies. However, to
FIG. 2 Sour gas treating plant with partial CO2 removal. minimize the Claus unit size and maximize
efficiency, an acid gas enrichment using

62
I JANUARY 2012 HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 LNG/GAS PROCESSING DEVELOPMENTS
selective amine is generally used to produce
“enriched” acid gas suitable for conven-
tional Claus SRUs.4
• Another option is to use an amine
absorption process, which is suitable for
H2S concentrations within the range of
1%–30 vol%. 5 They offer less complex
designs and the same sulfur quality as
the Claus process, but have the disadvan-
tage of providing lower sulfur recovery of
96%–97%.
Sulfur recovery efficiency. Typical sul-
fur recovery efficiencies for Claus plants
are 90%–96% for a two-stage reactor
and 95%–98% for a three-stage reactor.
However, new environmental regulations
limit sulfur recovery efficiencies to 98.5%–
99.9%. This limitation has led to the devel-
opment of a large number of tail gas units
based on different concepts to remove the
last remaining sulfur species.6
Changes in ethane quality. Due to
partial CO2 removal in the current design,
the ethane product—which is separated
from the treated gas in the ethane-recov-
ery section—contains CO2. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to add an ethane decar-
bonation unit (EDU) to reduce the CO2
level to the specified maximum of 50 parts
per million by weight (ppmw) prior to
export. DEA is used to remove CO2 from
ethane in the EDU before it is dehydrated
using molecular sieve beds.
In the case of total CO 2 removal in
the GTU, the ethane cut from the ethane
recovery section will contain very little to
virtually no CO2. In fact, ethane will con-
tain around 500 ppmw if CO2 is lowered to
100 ppmv in the GTU using DEA, which
can be removed by molecular sieve beds.
Also, there is no need for a separate drying
unit if molecular sieve beds are used, which
provides an advantage in terms of cost, ease
of operation and maintenance. Therefore,
in the case of total CO2 removal, even the
molecular sieve bed is just a CO2 guard.
Changes in LPG product quality. The
environmental specification for the total
sulfur content in LPG products (C3 and
C4) has been lowered from 80 ppmw to 10
ppmw; this was the case for LPG products
from South Pars gas plants.
Sulfur species in LPG are essentially
mercaptans, which are removed by direct
oxidation with air in the presence of a pro-
prietary catalyst, using a caustic soda-wash
process. The LPG product is then dried
before export.
A molecular sieve sulfur guard is
installed after the LPG dryers. The molec-
SPECIALREPORT
ular sieve beds are regenerated using sales In more recent projects, environmental
gas that is then sent to the fuel gas system. regulations allow for fewer SO2 emissions
The regeneration gas must be CO2-free, from the SRU incinerator, which requires
as requested by the LPG guard bed ven- an increase in the conversion of sulfur
dor. Therefore, if partial removal of CO2 recovery from 97.5% to 99.5%. Thus,
is considered for the GTU design, then to achieve higher overall sulfur recovery,
another DEA absorber must be installed acid gas enrichment and tail gas treatment
for total CO2 removal from the regenera- units must be used. The acid gas enrich-
tion gas. However, if the CO2 is totally ment unit consists of selective H2S removal
removed in the GTU, then molecular from the acid gas in the presence of CO2
sieve guard beds can be used instead of a (i.e., partial CO2 removal from the acid
DEA absorber. gas). This is accomplished by including an
amine unit using a generic MDEA solvent
Evaluation of existing GTU. The that selectively absorbs H2S. The offgas
CO2 specifications for sales gas fed to a leaving the top of the amine absorber
consumer network should be less than 2 is sent to the incinerator to convert the
mol%—the maximum limit to prevent residual H2S to less harmful SO2, while the
general corrosion and pitting in pipelines. sour gas reaching the required H2S:CO2
This limit will be achieved if the CO2 con- ratio from the amine regeneration unit is
tent in the treated gas from the GTU is less sent as feed to the Claus reactor.
than 1 mol%. In fact, the latter quantity Therefore, by making a gas enrichment
was obtained by back calculation using the unit part of the sulfur gas recovery unit,
ratio of 60:40 for CO2:H2S in the acid it is no longer a requirement to specify an
gas to the SRU and a sulfur recovery of outlet CO2 of 1 mol% in the treated gas
97.5%. Therefore, partial CO2 removal from the GTU. Based on these results,
in the GTU was dictated by the process two alternatives exist for the gas process-
requirements in the SRU. ing plant scheme:
TABLE 2. Effect of CO2 removal on heating value of two sales gases
Heating value (Kcal/Nm3) Heating value (Kcal/Nm3)
with CO2 (max. 2 mol%) without CO2 % change
Gas A 8,228.05 8,396.48 2.04
Gas B 8,548.01 8,635.24 1.01
Flue gas
Incinerator
Acid gas Tail gas
Claus unit
enrichment treatment
Sulfur Sales gas Sales gas
compressor
Regeneration gas
Gas treating
Ethane
Reception Dehydration Ethane treatment Ethane
facilities unit (with unit recovery unit with mole
DEA or aMDEA)
sieve beds
C3 liquid
Gas condensate NGL C3 treatment
stabilization fractionation and drying
C4 treatment
and drying
C4 liquid
Stabilized condensate
FIG. 3 Sour gas treating plant with total CO2 removal.
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING JANUARY 2012
I 63
SPECIALREPORT LNG/GAS PROCESSING DEVELOPMENTS

1. Partial CO2 removal in the GTU—
similar to the old scheme, regardless of the
changes in the SRU, as shown in Fig. 2.
2. Total CO2 removal in the GTU—an
optimized gas processing plant scheme based
on changes in the SRU, as depicted in Fig. 3.
Effects of total CO2 removal on sales
gas quality. The sales gas from gas process-
ing plants can contain a maximum of 2
mol% of CO2, as stated in the previous
section. Carbon dioxide is an inert gas that
only uses energy to be heated to the flame
temperature, without any heat input con-
tribution to the combustion. Therefore, its
presence at a relatively high amount in the
sales gas is a waste of energy.
In addition to the above, environmen-
tal agencies of many countries continue
to implement more stringent emissions
standards requiring companies to report
their greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, many
customers buying sales gas want CO2 lev-
els in the gas to be minimized. Also, the
CO2 present in the sales gas is distributed
through many users, although it can be
recovered for industrial use when totally
captured at the gas plant source.
These negative aspects of CO2 presence
in the sales gas are some of the disadvan-
tages that can be easily prevented by total tion and a longer time for bed regenera-
CO2 removal in the GTU, which can be tion. Therefore, it could be expected that,
achieved using DEA or activated MDEA in the case of total CO2 removal, the bed
(aMDEA) in the GTU. When the GTU is adsorption capacity will be increased while
designed for both H2S and CO2 removal the bed regeneration time and energy con-
(down to 3 ppmv and 100 ppmv, respec- sumption are decreased. This is an item
tively) in the treated gas using DEA, the that needs further investigation by opera-
CO2 content in the sales gas ranges from tors and vendors.
100 ppmv–200 ppmv.
Effects of CO2 removal on sales gas Overall optimized scheme. Fig. 3
heating value. When modifying the sales shows the optimized scheme for total CO2
gas composition by total CO2 removal, it removal, where the ethane treatment with
is important to check the heating value to molecular sieve beds should only be con-
ensure that the changes are not significant sidered if the treated gas from the GTU
enough to require burner change in the will provide an ethane product with a CO2
consuming furnaces. Two sales gases were content higher than 50 ppmw.
studied for this purpose; the results are
presented in Table 2. As the table shows, SOLUTION
the effect of total CO2 removal on sales gas Before selecting a scheme for a gas pro-
heating value and its possible consequences cessing plant, it is necessary to construct
on burner design—as well as adverse effects a clear and complete picture of the entire
on the operation of existing burners—is facility. The requirements of each unit
insignificant. within the plant must be understood before
Effects of total CO2 removal on the they are integrated into the whole scheme.
dehydration unit. If CO2 is present in the The process scheme selection is car-
feed gas to the dehydration unit after the ried out during the conceptual stage of a
GTU, it might be partially co-adsorbed project and should take into account new
by the molecular sieve beds, resulting in technology developments for each unit in
a reduced active area for water adsorp- the plant. Such an approach will deliver an
optimized process for the plant that is cost
effective, energy efficient, and meets local
environmental and safety regulations. HP

LITERATURE CITED
Complete literature cited available online at
Need Telling! HydrocarbonProcessing.com.

BIC Media Solutions, the custom book publishing division of

BIC Alliance, can commemorate your story in a book within a Mohammad Maleki is the pro-
matter of months. cess, utility and HSE (health, safety
and environment) department man-
“The day we received our first copy of the published
ager at Energy Industries Engineering
book — well, we were just blown away! We love it and are
most grateful to the BIC staff for guiding us through to and Design Co. He was the consor-
completion.” tium process and HSE manager of South Pars front-end
Industry A collection of inspirational

Achievers
& industry
stories from business
greats of today & yesterday

— Tobie Craig, Vice President of Marketing,
Turner Industries
BIC Media offers turnkey publication of company
anniversaries, autobiographies and other books of
significance. You tell us your story of success and we’ll turn
it into an enduring volume that will inspire your employees,
clients and family members and serve as a testament to
hard work and perseverance. We offer writing, editing,
proofreading, page layout, cover design, publicity and more.
For more information on custom book publishing, event
planning or speaking services offered by BIC Media
Solutions, contact Earl Heard or Brandy McIntire at
(800) 460-4242, email brandy@bicalliance.com or visit
www.bicalliance.com/bic-media.
For more information on strategic marketing through
BIC Alliance, investment banking services through
IVS Investment Banking or executive recruiting through
BIC Recruiting, contact Earl Heard or Thomas Brinsko at
(800) 460-4242, or visit www.bicalliance.com.
engineering and design phases 17 and 18. Mr. Maleki
received a BS degree in chemical engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin. He has over 30 years of
experience as a process and HSE manager, project engi-
Earl Heard
& Br ady P
orche
Publishers of It’s What
We Do Together That
Counts & Energy Entrepreneurs
neering manager and principal process engineer on
several oil, gas and petrochemical projects.
Mohammad Reza Khorsand
Movaghar has worked in the pro-
cess department at Energy Industries
Engineering and Design Co. since
2008. He holds a BS degree in petro-
chemical engineering and a PhD in chemical engineering
from Tehran Polytechnic University. Dr. Khorsand also
received an MS degree from the University of Science
and Technology in Tehran. He served as a process engi-
neer on detailed design projects for gas train units—
including acid gas removal, dehydration and ethane
recovery—at South Pars gas plant phases 20 and 21. He
has over five years of experience as a process engineer
and process simulator on several oil and gas projects.

Select 160 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

64