OTC 20497

Sulfur Recovery Processes Modified for FPSO Topside Installations

John F. Watson, Merichem Chemicals & Refinery Services LLC

Copyright 2010, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 3–6 May 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

As environmental pressures increase, and interest grows in developing evermore-sour offshore oil fields, FPSO operators will
be required to recover sulfur from associated gas to control hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions to
the air. The first liquid redox process unit for removing sulfur from associated gas to be used to fuel FPSO topsides is under
design, and smaller scavenger systems are also available for use on remote floating platforms.

This paper details the economics of options for recovering sulfur from associated gas. The challenges of modifying onshore
process designs of these technologies for use in floating offshore facilities is also discussed.

In onshore applications, regenerable sulfur recovery processes offer order-of-magnitude lower operating costs than scavenger
systems. Onshore, these operating cost savings can justify the higher capital costs associated with regenerable technology
when dealing with sulfur loads as low as 200 kilograms per day; and liquid redox processes have additional advantages over
scavenger systems when evaluated for use in remote floating facilities. Operability in limited space, and greatly reduced
logistical demands, decrease the sulfur production breakpoint whereupon regenerable systems show advantages over non-
regenerable systems.

As pressure increases for FPSO designers and operators to provide solutions to sulfur emission problems, the correct choice
of processing options will minimize the cost and the operating burdens associated with these new facilities.

Introduction

Environmental pressures long felt by onshore operators to eliminate sulfur emissions to the atmosphere are finding their way
into the world of offshore oil and gas producers. New environmental regulations focus on the reduction of sulfur emissions
to the air. These sulfur emissions come typically in the form of sulfur dioxide (SO2), created by burning the sulfur
compounds naturally existing in oil and gas deposits. Air emissions of SO2 are a primary cause of acid rain, which has been a
high profile pollution concern for decades.

Dealing with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in fuel gas streams was a concern long before acid rain caught the world’s attention.
Hydrogen sulfide is an extremely toxic, corrosive and odorous gas, raising safety and material of construction issues in its
unaltered form. High levels of H2S in many raw natural gas streams have long required processing to reduce the contained
acid gases before transport and distribution of the fuel to market. (Watson and Jones, 2008) The simplest method of
destroying the hydrogen sulfide removed from fuel streams is combustion to form SO2. Of course, any H2S remaining in the
fuel will be oxidized to sulfur dioxide as the fuel is utilized. Although processes exist to remove sulfur dioxide from flue
gases, the economical choice for preventing sulfur emissions to the air has been to remove the H2S prior to flaring or using
the fuel, thus avoiding sulfur combustion and the formation and release of SO2.

Petroleum refineries have undergone extensive modification over the last twenty years to both reduce sulfur emissions to the
air from within refinery battery limits, as well as to produce low sulfur transportation fuels. Low sulfur gasoline and diesel
has become the norm in much of the world, and refinery focus is shifting to reducing sulfur in jet fuel and bunker C. Most of
the sulfur removed in refineries is first converted to H2S, which is then converted into non-gaseous forms of sulfur.
2 OTC 20497

In natural gas processing, hydrogen sulfide is the predominate naturally occurring sulfur compound. In onshore gas
processing, H2S is removed with other acid gases by use of amines or other solvents, and the concentrated acid gases are then
routed to processes that will convert the sulfur to a non-gaseous form. Over the last several decades, just as in refineries,
natural gas processing plants have faced increasingly stringent limitations on sulfur-to-air emissions. Although the regulatory
limits placed on these onshore facilities vary widely around the globe, most onshore operators have had to build and operate
more costly and complex facilities designed to further reduce sulfur to air emissions and thus the acid rain associated with
them. Offshore operators have been largely exempt from these regulations and restrictions, but that situation is starting to
change.

In the majority of cases, offshore producers of marketable natural gas have been able to transport raw gas to onshore facilities
prior to removing acid gases. Once ashore, the natural gas is subject to the same regulations as onshore production.
However, gas not recovered for sale has not traditionally been subject to the same restrictions. This includes gas used to
power offshore facilities (such as FPSO topsides operations), as well as gas that cannot be brought to market economically
and is, instead, disposed of by flaring. The sulfur compounds found in the offshore gas that was and is being fueled or flared
in place generate SO2 emissions that can travel long distances before the resulting acid rain falls to earth. The remote nature
of these offshore facilities has historically protected them from the regulatory and public pressures seen by onshore operators.
However, regulatory agencies and operating companies are under increasing pressure to limit these emissions at the source to
protect the environment “downwind”.

At the same time, increasing cost and scarcity of economical sources of oil and gas have resulted in development of
increasingly sour offshore deposits. In the case of marketable gas production, the corrosivity related to high acid gas content
can increase the cost of pipelines and related transportation facilities required to move the gas to onshore processing facilities.
Many producers of very sour natural gas are looking for ways to reduce the acid gas content via offshore processing so that
lower cost materials can continue to be used to build pipelines to shore. The primary processes used for removing acid gases
from sales gas are those employing solvents (such as amines) or membranes. However, these processes only separate out
H2S in gaseous form from the marketable fuel. The H2S thus removed must still be disposed of offshore. Although deep
well injection is an option, the high operating cost of re-injecting acid gas, and the risk of field contamination associated with
this practice, has minimized its use. The traditional disposal method of choice has been flaring. Thus as increasingly sour
offshore gas fields are developed, the potential result is increased SO2 emissions.

In the case of associated gas from offshore oil production, the amount of gas produced has often not been large enough to
justify the cost of facilities to bring the gas to market. However, pressure to reduce flaring of this “stranded gas” has caused
operators to reinject some of the associated gas back into the field. Often offshore production facilities are fueled by use of
some or all of the associated gas from the field. As this gas becomes sourer, it often becomes too corrosive for use as local
fuel without first treating the acid gas. The primary method for treating sour associated gas offshore is amine treating; and
the primary disposition of the resulting acid gas is by incineration or flare. The resulting SO2 emissions are becoming
increasingly unacceptable. As increasingly sour fields are balanced with increasingly stringent environmental demands,
processes currently in use to recover sulfur in non-gaseous forms onshore must be modified for use in offshore facilities.

A subset of these offshore operations that poses even greater challenges to technology developers are floating facilities, such
as FPSOs. As described in this paper, the criteria for evaluation and selection of hydrogen sulfide conversion processes for
use in remote, offshore facilities can be significantly different from those utilized in making onshore decisions. Additional
changes in selection criteria result when considering these technologies for operation on a moving platform.

Sulfur Recovery Processes

In order to eliminate or reduce sulfur emissions to the air, processes must be employed that convert H2S to solid or liquid
form. Operators have accomplished this in onshore facilities by three distinct groups of processes, where the economical
choice of process relates to the quantity of sulfur to be converted. For very large quantities of H2S, the process of choice is
the Claus process. For very small sulfur removal rates, in the range of 200 kg per day and less, scavengers are the onshore
processing option of choice. In between the large sulfur productions that economically demand the use of Claus technology,
and the small sulfur removal applications that can afford the operating costs of scavenger systems, liquid redox processes
have become the economic choice.
OTC 20497 3

The Claus Process

Claus is by far the predominant process for converting H2S to elemental sulfur. The vast majority of sulfur now supplied to
industrial users is produced using this process. Although there are thousands of Claus units in operation today, the process
does have drawbacks and limitations, even in onshore applications. The Claus system consists of a combustion furnace
followed by two or three catalytic reactors with intermediate cooling and reheating. Elemental sulfur vapors are condensed
from the reactor outlet, forming a hot liquid sulfur product. The basic reactions occurring in the system are:

H2S + 3/2 O2 → SO2 + H2O (1)

2 H2S + SO2 ↔ 3 SO + 2 H2O (2)
Overall: H2S + ½ O2 ↔ SO + H2O (3)

In the Claus process, a large portion of the acid gas is directed to the furnace to produce sulfur dioxide (reaction 1). The
sulfur dioxide is then reacted with uncombusted hydrogen sulfide to form elemental sulfur and water (reaction 2). Reaction 1
occurs entirely in the combustion furnace while reaction 2 occurs in the combustion furnace and the subsequent reactors. The
Claus reactions require high temperatures with the combustion furnace operating at approximately 1000°C and the catalytic
reactors operating at close to 400°C. Unfortunately, the chemical equilibrium of reaction 2 favors the formation of elemental
sulfur at low temperatures; consequently, the overall conversion to sulfur is limited to 95–97% depending on the number of
catalytic reactors. To achieve higher removal efficiencies, a tail gas treater is required. When high removal efficiencies are
required, the added cost of additional reactor stages and tail gas treating must be included when comparing Claus to other
alternatives. (Nagl, 2008)

Since Claus is a combustion process, it can only be used to process acid gas streams. In addition, acid gas streams with less
than 15–20% H2S are very difficult to process and they require more elaborate and expensive processing schemes. For oil
and gas production facilities, this means that the direct treating of the sour gas must be accomplished with amines or other
solvent-based processes. The acid gas generated by the initial amine unit is often processed further in another amine unit
referred to as an acid gas enrichment unit to achieve the proper H2S concentration levels for Claus feed. In cases where there
is no need to remove carbon dioxide from the natural gas stream, the entire cost of amine processing must be considered as
part of the cost associated with the use of the Claus process.

The liquid sulfur product condensed from the Claus reactor outlet contains entrained H2S vapors that can evolve in
downstream handling and storage facilities. With a freeze point of almost 120°C, the liquid sulfur must be kept hot to
prevent it from solidifying in the process and storage equipment. The difficulties related to handling this material through
transport to shore must be taken in to consideration when evaluating the use of Claus technology for offshore applications.

Although it is recognized that Claus technology is well suited for onshore applications from twenty-five tons per day up to
thousands of tons per day of sulfur production, other processes have proven to be more flexible and more economical than
Claus for processing of smaller sulfur loads. (Baker and Barnette, 2010) The severe and inflexible operating conditions and
issues associated with handling the liquid sulfur product will make it difficult to adapt the process for use in offshore
facilities. Additionally, most offshore facilities will not be facing a H2S problem significant enough to require recovery of
twenty-five or more tons per day of sulfur. The immediate problem faced by many offshore operators will be in the size
range typically served by other processes onshore, and the economic advantage of these processes for small sulfur
productions will be even greater when facing the requirements of offshore operation.

H2S Scavengers

Scavengers are materials that absorb H2S from a gas stream and chemically convert it such that the sulfur is “locked” into the
scavenger base material. Both solid and liquid scavenger media are available and in widespread use.

Solid Scavengers

Solid scavengers are generally iron-based materials. The “original” solid-scavenger was “iron-sponge”, which consists of
hydrated ferric oxide impregnated on wood chips. This process worked very well until the media was “spent”. During
changeout of the spent media, the wood chips had to be kept wet, or the iron sulfide reacted exothermically with oxygen in
the air and could cause the wood media to catch fire. Due to safety concerns, iron-sponge has fallen from favor in the gas
processing industry. The solid scavengers employed in the industry today react an iron oxide with H2S to form innocuous
iron pyrite. Unlike iron sulfide, iron pyrite is not pyrophoric.

The design of a solid scavenger system is dependent on the mass flowrate of the H2S over the media, so large gas flow rates
with low concentrations require large vessels, with long reactor bed lives. Alternately, small gas streams that are richer in
4 OTC 20497

H2S may be treated using smaller vessels, but shorter bed lives may require media changeout too frequently. A key benefit
of this system is that there is virtually no operator involvement other than reactor turnarounds. The gas flows over the media
and reacts. A downturn in flowrate and/or H2S concentration does not require any operator attention, as the media will
simply react with whatever H2S is in the gas stream.

One design decision facing potential users of this technology is the reactor configuration and associated operating costs.
Designers must choose between a single reactor vessel flowscheme, or a dual vessel, lead-lag configuration. In a single
vessel configuration, when the catalyst is spent and H2S breakthrough occurs, the vessel must be taken out of service and the
media replaced, possibly causing an interruption in production and/or an undesirable H2S in the product gas stream. In
contrast, a dual vessel, lead-lag system allows the lag vessel to become the lead vessel, allowing continued plant operation
while the former lead vessel is taken out of service and the spent media changed-out. The benefits of this system are higher
reliability and media efficiency. The media in the lead vessel can be reacted to virtual completion without H2S breakthrough
because of the back up afforded by the lag vessel. (Nagl, 2007)

In a properly operated solid scavenger system, approximately 10 kilograms of fresh media is required per kilogram of H2S
removed. In onshore operations, this equates to a media cost of about $10 per kilogram of H2S removed. As the spent media
is stable iron-pyrite, the waste generated is non-hazardous and typically disposed of in a landfill. Media change-out typically
takes a day, but this can be a messy operation, even in onshore facilities, with water-soaked spent media resulting from
pressurized water used to blast spent material out of the vessel. In onshore operations, an area is typically provided near the
process unit for partial air-drying of the wet media before transport to the landfill.

Solid scavenger systems are very common onshore. However, logistics of transporting fresh and spent media and space
requirements for media changeout have prevented broad use of this system on offshore platforms. These same issues will
likely prevent widespread use of this technology on FPSOs and other floating platforms.

Liquid Scavengers

Many liquid scavengers are water-based solutions that, for most applications, result in water-soluble reaction products.
These spent materials often have very low toxicity characteristics and are biodegradable, making this a relatively simple
system to handle in onshore applications. Liquid scavengers can be employed in two different processing schemes. The
most predictable operation is achieved by using a batch mode by passing the gas through vessels filled with the scavenger.
Two vessel systems, similar to the solid scavenger system described before, maximize the media efficiency and flexibility of
operation. The logistics of handling a liquid scavenger media in such an offshore facility should be significantly simpler than
those described for solid scavenger systems; but the quantity of fresh media required for such an operation remains in the
range of 10 kilograms of media per kilogram of H2S removed. The cost of fresh liquid scavenger media can be more than
twice that of solid scavengers. In many onshore operations, liquid media costs are in the range of $25 per kilogram of H2S
removed. Use of this configuration for FPSO service will also require engineering consideration of the issues associated with
operating large liquid filled vessels on a moving platform.

The lower capital cost processing scheme utilizes direct injection of liquid scavenger media into a static mixer or a long
length of pipe to achieve thorough mixing of the gas and liquid. A coalescing filter then separates the liquid from the gas.
Direct injection of liquid scavengers does have problems. First, the degree of gas/liquid contact is dependent on the type of
contacting device, the gas velocity and the residence time. Consequently, the degree of mixing and hence efficiency is
sensitive to changing gas flow. In addition, complete separation of the gas and liquid is necessary since the scavenger media
can interfere with the operation of glycol dehydration units by causing severe foaming. However, the combination of low
capital in the direct injection scheme and simple logistics has made this scheme a favorite for gas treatment offshore when
removing a very small amount of H2S. (Nagl, 2007)

Iron-Based Liquid Redox.

In between the large sulfur productions that economically demand the use of Claus technology, and the small sulfur removal
applications that can afford the operating costs of scavenger systems, liquid redox processes have become the economic
choice for onshore applications. Liquid redox processes use an aqueous (water based) scrubbing system containing water-
soluble metal ions oxidized by ambient air, resulting in a suitable electropotential for oxidizing sulfide ions to elemental
sulfur. In other words, the reaction occurs in a water solution containing a metal ion capable of removing electrons (negative
charges) from a hydrosulfide ion (HS-) to form sulfur, and in turn, transferring the electrons to oxygen (O2) in the
regeneration process. A liquid redox process was first commercialized about 70 years ago, and this technology family has
undergone continuous improvement since that first use. Iron-based processes became the clear choice 30 years ago, and
since then the technology has been modified for use over a wide range of processing conditions in a wide range of industries.
OTC 20497 5

Early on, scientists recognized iron as an excellent oxidizing agent for the conversion of H2S to elemental sulfur. However,
due to the very low solubility of iron in aqueous solutions, the iron had to be present in the dry state (iron sponge) or in
suspensions (the Ferrox process) or compounded with toxic materials such as cyanides. In the 1960’s, development work
was begun in England to increase the solubility of elemental iron in aqueous solutions so that it could be used in liquid redox
processes in place of more expensive and hazardous metals used in prior processes. This work led to the introduction of the
CIP process, CIP being an acronym for “Chelated Iron Process”. However, it was not until the late 1970s that a system of
chelates was developed that had sufficient oxidative resistance to be technically stable and commercially successful. This
development work led to the introduction of the most popular liquid redox process in use today.
.
For thirty years, this technology has served a number of industries. Starting with oil and gas production (upstream), and oil
refining (downstream), the basic process has been continually improved and modified to allow for expanded use in other
markets and industries. More than 200 process installations around the world depend on this technology to remove H2S from
their sour gas streams. On a combined basis, these installations remove over 600,000 kilograms of sulfur per day. From
petrochemicals to metals (coke oven gas and direct reduced iron off gas), from wastewater treatment (municipal and
industrial) to carbon dioxide products (food and beverage), this simple robust technology has found many niches. More
recently alternative energy arenas such as geothermal, landfill gas, biogases and gasification have been added to the portfolio
of applications successfully using this technology for sulfur recovery. (Watson and Jones, 2008) Modifying the process for
operation on a floating offshore platform is currently underway, and is the latest step in the ongoing evolution of the
technology.

Chemistry

Liquid redox processes employ aqueous-based solutions containing metal ions capable of transferring electrons in reduction-
oxidation (redox) reactions. The current state-of-the-art liquid redox process employs a non-toxic, chelated iron catalyst to
accelerate the reaction between H2S and oxygen, forming elemental sulfur.

H2S + ½ O2 → SO + H2O (4)

(Fe)

All of the reactions in the process occur in the liquid phase in spite of the fact that equation 4 is a vapor phase reaction. In the
process, the sour gas contacts the aqueous, chelated iron solution and the H2S is absorbed into the solution, ionizing into
sulfide and hydrogen ions as follows:
H2S + H2O → 2H+ + S= (5)
The ionization reaction is very fast while the mass transfer is relatively slow.
The dissolved sulfide ions then react with chelated, ferric ions to form elemental sulfur as follows:
S= + 2Fe+++ → SO + 2Fe++ (6)
This reaction is very fast and is not equilibrium limited. In addition, since the reactions are occurring at ambient
temperatures, the sulfur forms as a solid. The solution then contacts air and oxygen is absorbed into the solution. The
ferrous ions convert back to the active ferric state as follows:
½ O2+ H2O + 2 Fe++ → 2 Fe+++ + 2 OH- (7)
Again, the oxidation of the ferrous ions is very fast and the mass transfer of the oxygen into the solution is relatively slow.
Adding equations 5, 6, and 7 yields equation 4. (Nagl, 2010)

Flowschemes

In applying this chemistry to a wide range of gas streams in diverse industrial processes, many different flowschemes have
been successfully employed. The two most common processing schemes utilized are illustrated in figures 1and 2. Figure 1
shows a “Conventional” unit, which is most commonly employed for processing gas streams that are either combustible or
cannot be contaminated with air. This scheme direct treats natural gas or associated gas streams without first using a solvent
system to separate out the acid gas. Figure 2 illustrates an “AutoCirculation” unit, which is used for processing non-
combustible streams that can acceptably be contaminated with air. When CO2 removal from natural gas is desired, it is
usually preferable to remove the acid gases (CO2 and H2S) using a solvent-based system, and then recover the sulfur from the
acid gas using this indirect liquid redox configuration. The direct treatment of natural gas using the liquid redox process can
achieve reductions in H2S that are comparable to those achieved by solvent-based acid gas removal units, so the choice of
liquid redox configuration is normally determined by considering the economics of the complete project flowscheme.
(Graubard, 2002)
6 OTC 20497

FLUE GAS

WASH WATER
Figure 1. Direct treatment using Conventional scheme (Watson, 2006)

When using the Conventional scheme, the entrained liquids are removed prior to introducing the sour gas stream to the
absorber. In this scheme, equations 5 and 6 occur in the absorber while equation 7 occurs in the oxidizer. Several types of
absorber are routinely used in direct treat service. Since solid sulfur will form in solution in the absorber, only non-fouling
devices may be used. Figure 1 shows active liquid redox solution contacting the sour gas in a liquid full absorber. The
leading licensors long history of designing and servicing liquid redox units that satisfy a wide range of processing conditions
and objectives has resulted in a portfolio of contacting devices that provide robust absorber operation for every circumstance.
“Sweet” gas exits the absorber, and passes through a knockout pot with mist eliminator for removal of entrained solution. In
most cases, a single absorber device achieves the desired H2S specification for the sweet gas.

The solution from the absorber flows to the oxidizer for regeneration. In the oxidizer, air is sparged uniformly through the
solution, converting the iron back to the active state. The oxidizer consists of a cone bottom vessel containing air spargers
and a series of baffles and weirs. The regenerated solution is pumped back to the absorber to complete the cycle.

Sulfur settles in the cone bottom section of the oxidizer and is typically concentrated into slurry of 10 to 15 weight % sulfur.
The concentrated sulfur slurry is pumped from this cone to the sulfur filter. The cone bottom not only provides a relatively
calm area for promoting the concentration of sulfur particles, but also provides space for sulfur inventory. This allows for
maintenance of the filter without affecting the continuing operation of the solution cycle.
OTC 20497 7

FLUE GAS

WASH WATER
Noncombustible
Sour Gas
CENTERWELL
Absorber
VACUUM BELT
FILTER

SULFUR
CAKE

FILTRATE
TANK
AIR
E-1
SULFUR
SLURRY

FILTRATE
AUTOCIRCULATION PUMP
VESSEL

Figure 2. Indirect treatment using AutoCirculation scheme (Watson, 2006)

When using the AutoCirculation scheme to treat acid gases that have been removed from natural gas or associated gas using
solvent-based processes, the only pretreatment of the acid gas required prior to the liquid redox unit is a knockout pot to
remove entrained liquids. As can be seen in figure 2, the acid gas and regeneration air are both directed to the
AutoCirculation vessel, and the excess air and “cleansed” CO2 are combined in the single vent from this vessel.

In the AutoCirculation scheme, equations 5 and 6 are performed in the “centerwell”, which is shown as a piece of pipe open
on each end. Equation 7 is performed in the remainder of the vessel which serves as the oxidizer. The purpose of the
centerwell is to separate the sulfide ions in the absorber from the air in the oxidizer to minimize byproduct formation. In
these units, acid gas from an amine unit is sparged into the centerwell, and air is uniformly sparged into the remainder of the
vessel. The differential in “aerated” density between the solution on either side of the centerwell results in a natural
circulation from the oxidizer into the absorber and back again. The resulting unique feature of the AutoCirculation scheme
is, of course, that no pumps are required to circulate solution between the absorber and the oxidizer. As in the oxidizer vessel
in a conventional flowscheme, the AutoCirculation vessel is given a cone bottom, where sulfur is concentrated to 10 to 15
weight % before the slurry is pumped to filtration. This conical area once again serves as an operating inventory for sulfur
product during outage of the filter for maintenance.

In either scheme, a chemical addition skid and sulfur filter round out the unit. The chemical addition skid consists of small
tanks and metering pumps that allow controlled addition of the caustic, iron catalyst and chelate formulation to replace traces
lost in the sulfur cake, as well as losses due to chelate degradation and salt formation. Many of the improvements to the
technology by the leading licensor over the past 30 years have successfully reduced these losses and the required make-up.
Other proprietary chemicals are also pumped from this skid to deal with foaming and biological activity on an as needed
basis.

A range of filtration methods are employed in liquid redox processing, with the choice primarily dependent on unit size. A
slurry of sulfur and catalyst solution is pumped from the settling cone to a filter, where the sulfur is concentrated to a cake
consisting of sulfur and water with traces of salts, iron and chelates. The filtration method represented in figures 1 and 2 is a
vacuum belt filter which is the most common method utilized in units across all industries. This method typically produces a
cake that is roughly 65 wt. % sulfur. The moist cake is easily handled after collection in dumpsters or supersacks fed from
the filter belt, without problems that could result from free liquids. This moisture content also allows for sufficient removal
of byproduct salts in the cake to balance their production in the process, thus eliminating the need to deal with a liquid waste
stream from the process. (Watson and Jones, 2008)
8 OTC 20497

The economics of the liquid redox process support its selection for the niche it fills. The operating costs of the process are
somewhat evenly divided between power costs to drive pumps and blowers, and catalyst and chemical costs. For onshore
operations, the total operating cost typically runs between $0.30 and $0.50 per kilogram of sulfur removed. The savings
when compared to the $10 per kilogram of sulfur operating cost of solid scavengers justifies the additional capital required
for the regenerable liquid redox process. The economic breakpoint between the options is dependent on the operator’s
valuation of capital vs. operating costs.

Offshore Considerations

To date, only a couple of offshore production platforms have used the liquid redox process. (Rouleau, 1996) Since both of
these operations were producing pipeline grade gas by amine processing, they both employed the AutoCirculation scheme to
remove sulfur from amine acid gas. As more remote facilities deal with sulfur emission limitations, the Conventional scheme
will find use in cleaning up gas used as fuel or flared at the platform, eliminating the need for amine processing.

The issues associated with the use of the liquid redox process in fixed platform offshore facilities are the same regardless of
the choice of flowscheme. The required plot space and operating weights must be minimized, and provisions must be made
for transporting the sulfur product to shore. The need to limit weight and space is routine in many of the industries served by
the liquid redox process, and experience gained in these other industries has proved invaluable in designing the physical
systems installed on offshore platforms.

The operating cost advantage of the liquid redox process over scavenger systems is enhanced in offshore applications because
of the order of magnitude reduction in solids handling required. For example, a scavenger unit employing solid media to
remove one ton per day of sulfur requires 10 tons per day of fresh scavenger delivered to the offshore facility, and 11 tons of
spent material on a dry basis recovered from the facility and returned to shore. The spent material is actually wet, so
depending on the facilities provided offshore for drying spent media, the actual weight of spent material to be transported will
be greater, perhaps by a factor or 2 or 3. In contrast, the liquid redox facility would require on average a couple of hundred
kilograms of fresh chemicals per day delivered to the facility , and less than 2 tons per day of sulfur cake on a wet basis
transported to shore. The material handling requirements of the scavenger system is approximately 15 to 20 times greater
than that required to support the liquid redox process.

Finally, the labor required to support the two alternative processes may be similar in total, but the distribution of labor is
significantly different. While it is true that scavenger systems do not require much operator attention between reactor
turnarounds, concentrated effort of a relatively large crew is required to handle the large amount of fresh and spent media
involved in a single change-out. In contrast, material handling issues in the liquid redox system are relatively minor. In an
industry forum discussing sulfur recovery processes for a wide range of industries, one of the offshore operators of liquid
redox technology reported their unit required an easily manageable 25 hours per week of operator attention.

Although both the Conventional scheme and the AutoCirculation scheme can be successfully employed on fixed offshore
platforms, the challenges of operating liquid filled vessels on a moving platform such as an FPSO currently limit the
processing choice in that case to the Conventional scheme. Engineering and construction is underway on the first liquid
redox unit designed for operation on an FPSO scheduled for deployment in the Adriatic Sea. The licensor of this unit has
relied upon over 30 years of experience designing units for a multitude of industries and applications, combined with
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling, to modify the process for operation as a topside facility on this FPSO.
Several modifications were required to deal with gas liquid contacting and liquid/solid separation requirements while the
process unit experiences the wave motions faced by all FPSOs. The result is a robust process design that will provide reliable
service and sweetened associated gas to fuel the topsides processing equipment without releasing excessive sulfur emissions
to the atmosphere.

This first of a kind liquid redox unit will process 6000 Nm3/hr of gas and recover 2.25 metric tons per day of sulfur.
Estimated total operating cost is $0.50 per kilogram of sulfur. This low operating cost provides an advantage over solid
scavenger systems of about $8,000,000 per year without considering the cost of handling the massive quantities of fresh and
spent scavenger media to and from the FPSO. This large operating cost savings will continue to make the liquid redox
process the preferred choice for FPSO operators facing sulfur emission restrictions and significant sulfur loads.
OTC 20497 9

Conclusions

As the world’s need for oil pushes producers to develop both more remote and sourer fields, and environmental pressures
force regulators and operators to limit their sulfur to air emissions, our industry will see increased demand for FPSOs and for
FPSO topside facilities to recover sulfur before it can be released to the atmosphere. Capitalizing on the experience of oil
and gas producers and others who have faced increasingly stringent sulfur regulations onshore, offshore operators can
develop sour fields while satisfying those environmental concerns.

The majority of FPSO operations will experience sulfur problems requiring the control and capture of less than 10 tons per
day of sulfur. Onshore experience shows that the liquid redox process will be the most economical choice for the majority of
these operators. For very small sulfur problems of a couple of hundred kilograms or less, solid or liquid scavengers will be
the preferred processing option.

Special considerations will be required in the design of these processing units for operation on FPSOs and other floating
platforms. CFD modeling has been employed to modify process internals for operation of the liquid redox process for use in
FPSO topsides operations. The first liquid redox system designed for use upon an FPSO is currently in construction and is
scheduled for initial operation in 2011.

Reference List

Baker, C. & Barnette, A. B. 2010. A Natural Gas Processing Success Story. Hydrocarbon Processing, (January 2010) 71-74.

Graubard, D.E. 2002. LO-CAT Process for Cost Effective Desulfuriaztion of All Types of Gas Streams. Illinois: Gas Technology Division
of Merichem Chemicals & Refinery Services LLC

Nagl, G. J. 2010. COSO Geothermal Field: 15 Years of Successful H2S Emission Abatement. Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, 38
(6): 21-24

Nagl, G. J. 2009. Increase the Flexibility of Your Claus Unit, Hydrocarbon Processing. (September 2009) 37-41

Nagl, G. J. 2007. Small Capacity Sulfur Recovery Units. Hydrocarbon China, (3Q 2007)

Rouleau, W.K. 1996. LO-CAT II Process: H2S Oxidation System for Offshore Platforms. Ilinois: Gas Technology Division of Merichem
Chemicals & Refinery Services LLC

Watson, John F. 2006. Flexibility of Liquid Redox Processing for Sulfur Recovery from H2S in Gases. Instituto Mexicano de Ingenieros
Quimicos XLVI Convencion Nacional, Monterrey, Mexico (October 28, 2006)

Watson, J. and Jones, K. 2008. Removing H2S from SynGas: Using Proven Technology in Japanese Waste Gasification Facilities.
Hydrocarbon Processing, (January 2008)