H - Team 05 - Final Copy of Report

Revamp of CO2 Recovery Plant Final Report
Client: Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

Team 5 Date of Submission: 2019-04-09
Executive Summary
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) wishes to increase the capacity of the Steam
Methane Reformer (SMR) unit to produce more hydrogen for increased synthetic crude oil
production. However, increasing the SMR capacity requires an increase in the CO2 Recovery Plant
capacity to maintain the CO2 concentrations in the process streams at an acceptable level.
Okane Engineering was requested by CNRL to develop a redesign of the CO2 Recovery
Plant at Horizon Oil Sands near Fort McKay, Alberta that would increase the operating capacity
by 15% and 25%. This project would reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions costs incurred
under the provincial and federal climate leadership plans. Without reductions in GHG emissions,
the increasing carbon tax prices would compromise the profitability of the Horizon Oil Sands
facility. This project would also provide an opportunity for additional revenue from the sale of
excess CO2 produced by the CO2 Recovery Plant.
ProMax simulation software was used to develop the process redesigns. The design and
operating data provided by CNRL were used as benchmarks for design. An AACE Class 4 cost
estimate was completed using a discount rate of 15% and hurdle rate of 20% over a 20-year project
life to evaluate economic feasibility. Project revenues were calculated using a carbon tax price of
C$30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (/tCO2e) and estimated CO2 selling price of C$23 /tCO2.
The proposed redesign for the 125% operating capacity involves the optimization of
operating pressures and temperatures and modification of packing configurations in the CO2
Absorber and LP Flash Stripper. Three additional exchangers and the upsizing of two drums are
also required. The resulting CO2 product flow rate is 63.2 tonnes per hour (t/h), which is a 20.9%
increase from the base case. Project execution is expected to take 23 months, which includes 7
months for engineering, 8 months for procurement, 7 months for construction, and 4 months for
i
commissioning and start-up. The estimated capital cost was C$14.76 MM with a C$4.51 MM
increase in annual operating costs compared to the base case. This redesign was not feasible at
current economic conditions, with a net present value (NPV) of -C$10.69 MM. For this redesign
to be economically feasible, the combined total of the sale price of CO2 and carbon tax price would
need to be C$79 /tCO2.
Due to the design constraints of the existing equipment, a 12% capacity increase was
proposed instead of a 15% increase. The 112% capacity redesign optimizes the operating pressures
and temperatures for the existing equipment. The resulting CO2 product flow rate is 56.2 t/h, which
is a 7.7% increase from the base case. Implementation of this redesign is done onstream, so project
execution time is minimal. The estimated increase in the annual operating cost was C$670 K,
which gave an NPV of C$6.64 MM. This redesign was determined to be economically feasible
and would provide an additional revenue of C$1.86 MM per year compared to the base case.
Both capacity redesigns were determined to be properly risk managed and socially and
environmentally sustainable. Safety and risk analyses identified potential high-velocity lines in
both cases which should be evaluated for corrosion concerns prior to project execution.
Based on economic feasibility and project execution time, Okane Engineering recommends
the 112% capacity redesign. Field tests should be completed to verify the CO2 recovery efficiencies
stated in the redesign due to limitations in the simulation model. The vendor compressor unit
equipment specifications were also out of scope and must be validated prior to project execution.
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction and Statement of Objectives ............................................................................... 1
2. Background ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Proposed Solution.................................................................................................................... 3
4. Justification ............................................................................................................................. 4
5. Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................................... 5
5.1. Do Nothing .................................................................................................................. 5
5.2. Replacement of Plant with Gasification System ......................................................... 6
6. Project Description .................................................................................................................. 6
6.1. Existing Process Design Description – Kaitlin ........................................................... 9
Model Verification ....................................................................................... 11
Separation Model Verification ..................................................................... 11
Areas of Heat Exchange Verification .......................................................... 12
Staged Compression Verification ................................................................ 12
6.2. Project Assumptions, Constraints, and Limitations .................................................. 12
Assumptions and Constraints ....................................................................... 12
Limitations ................................................................................................... 14
Project Dependencies ................................................................................... 14
Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 15
7. Option A: 125% Capacity Redesign ..................................................................................... 15
7.1. Process Description ................................................................................................... 15
CO2 Absorption............................................................................................ 18
CO2 Desorption ............................................................................................ 19
Design Considerations ................................................................................. 19
Start-Up and Shutdown Considerations ....................................................... 19
7.2. Heat Integration ......................................................................................................... 20
7.3. Material and Energy Balances ................................................................................... 21
7.4. Equipment List and Sizing ........................................................................................ 22
iii
Columns ....................................................................................................... 23
Heat Exchangers .......................................................................................... 23
Vessels ......................................................................................................... 24
Pumps........................................................................................................... 25
Compressors ................................................................................................. 25
Process Piping .............................................................................................. 26
Materials of Construction ............................................................................ 27
7.5. Utility Requirements ................................................................................................. 27
7.6. Project Execution Strategy ........................................................................................ 28
Engineering Plan .......................................................................................... 30
Procurement Plan ......................................................................................... 30
Construction Plan ......................................................................................... 31
Commissioning Plan .................................................................................... 31
Project Management Schedule ..................................................................... 32
7.7. Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 33
Economic Introduction................................................................................. 33
Fixed Capital Expenditure ........................................................................... 33
Working Capital Expenditure ...................................................................... 35
Operating Cost ............................................................................................. 35
Financing Plan ............................................................................................. 37
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis .................................................................. 37
Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 38
Economic Conclusions................................................................................. 39
7.8. Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................ 39
Environmental Conclusions ......................................................................... 41
7.9. Safety and Risk Analysis ........................................................................................... 41
Identification of Hazards and Safety Risks .................................................. 42
What If? Process Hazard Analysis ............................................................... 42
Hazard and Operability Study...................................................................... 43
Chemical Exposure Index ............................................................................ 44
iv
Fire and Explosion Index ............................................................................. 46

Applicable Safety Regulations and Codes Requirements ............................ 47
Health and Safety Risk Management Conclusions ...................................... 47
7.10. Net Social Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 47
8. Option B: 112% Capacity Redesign ...................................................................................... 48
8.1. Process Description ................................................................................................... 48
CO2 Absorption............................................................................................ 49
CO2 Desorption ............................................................................................ 49
Design Considerations ................................................................................. 50
8.2. Heat Integration ......................................................................................................... 50
8.3. Material and Energy Balances ................................................................................... 50
8.4. Equipment List and Sizing ........................................................................................ 52
8.5. Utility Requirements ................................................................................................. 53
8.6. Project Execution Strategy ........................................................................................ 53
8.7. Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 53
Economic Introduction................................................................................. 53
Fixed Capital Expenditure ........................................................................... 54
Operating Cost ............................................................................................. 54
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis .................................................................. 55
Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 56
Economic Conclusions................................................................................. 56
8.8. Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................ 56
8.9. Safety and Risk Analysis ........................................................................................... 57
Hazard Identification and Risk Evaluation .................................................. 57
Chemical Exposure Index ............................................................................ 58
Fire and Explosion Index ............................................................................. 59
Applicable Safety Regulations and Risk Management Conclusions ........... 60
8.10. Net Social Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 60
9. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 61
10. References ............................................................................................................................ 64
v
Appendix A: Decision Analysis................................................................................................... A1

Appendix B: Simulation Assumptions.......................................................................................... B1
Appendix C: Simulation Validation.............................................................................................. C1
Appendix D: Separation Calculations .......................................................................................... D1
Appendix E: Drawing Package ..................................................................................................... E1
Appendix F: Start-up and Shutdown Procedures .......................................................................... F1
Appendix G: Detailed Material and Energy Balances ................................................................. G1
Appendix H: Detailed Equipment List and Sizing ...................................................................... H1
Appendix I: Heat Exchanger Design ............................................................................................. I1
Appendix J: Economics ................................................................................................................. J1
Appendix K: Project Management Schedule ............................................................................... K1
Appendix L: Safety and Risk ........................................................................................................ L1
Appendix M: Pressure Relief Device Sizing ............................................................................... M1
Appendix N: Environmental and Net Social Benefit Assessments ............................................. N1
Appendix O: Pertinent Articles .................................................................................................... O1
Appendix P: Email Correspondence ............................................................................................. P1
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Block Flow Diagram of CO2 Recovery Plant with CO2 Removal Unit Scope
Indicated .......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram for the Base Case and 112% Capacity Redesign ....................... 8
Figure 3: Process Flow Diagram for the 125% Capacity Redesign.............................................. 17
Figure 4: Project Execution Schedule ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 5: Manpower Distribution for Engineering and Labour .................................................... 32
Figure 6: Fixed Capital Expenditure Breakdown ......................................................................... 34
Figure 7: Operating Cost Breakdown for the 125% Capacity Increase ........................................ 36
Figure 8: Discounted Cash Flow Profile for the 125% Case ........................................................ 37
Figure 9: NPV Tornado Diagram for the 125% Case ................................................................... 38
Figure 10: IRR Tornado Diagram for the 125% Case .................................................................. 39
Figure 11: Chemical Exposure Radii by ERPG Level Overlaid on Satellite Imagery for the
125% Case ................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 12: Operating Cost Breakdown for the 112% Capacity Increase ...................................... 54
Figure 13: Discounted Cash Flow Profile for the 112% Case ...................................................... 55
Figure 14: NPV Tornado Diagram for the 112% Case ................................................................. 56
Figure 16: Chemical Exposure Radii by ERPG Level Overlaid on Satellite Imagery for the
112% Case ................................................................................................................... 59
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Outline of Given Stream Specifications ......................................................................... 13
Table 2: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 125% Capacity Redesign ....... 16
Table 3: Equipment Modifications and Additions Required for the 125% Redesign Case .......... 16
Table 4: Summary of Streams Requiring Cooling or Heating for Heat Integration ..................... 20
Table 5: 125% Case Overall Material Balance ............................................................................. 21
Table 6: 125% Case Overall Energy Balance ............................................................................... 22
Table 7: Summary of Column Specifications ............................................................................... 23
Table 8: Summary of Heat Exchanger Specifications .................................................................. 24
Table 9: Summary of Vessel Specifications ................................................................................. 25
Table 10: Summary of Pump Specifications ................................................................................ 25
Table 11: Summary of Compressor Specifications ...................................................................... 26
Table 12: Additional Utility Requirements for 125% Capacity Redesign ................................... 28
Table 13: Utility Cost Summary ................................................................................................... 36
Table 14: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table .................................................................. 44
Table 15. Fire and Explosion Index Summary Table for the 125% Redesign Case ..................... 46
Table 16: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 112% Capacity Redesign ..... 49
Table 17: 112 % Case Overall Material Balance .......................................................................... 51
Table 18: 112 % Case Overall Energy Balance ............................................................................ 52
Table 19: Additional Utility Requirements................................................................................... 53
Table 20: Utility Cost Summary ................................................................................................... 55
Table 21: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table .................................................................. 58
Table 22: Fire and Explosion Index Summary Table for the 112% Redesign Case..................... 60
Table 23: Summary of Requirements for Redesign ...................................................................... 61
viii
1. Introduction and Statement of Objectives

The Horizon Oil Sands upgrading facility located north of Fort McKay, Alberta transforms
bitumen into synthetic crude oil (SCO) using delayed coking and hydrotreating processes (1). This
requires a large excess of hydrogen which is supplied by the Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) unit.
The SMR produces 144 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen (2). CNRL wishes to
increase the capacity of the SMR unit to improve hydrogen supply to support future increases in
SCO production. However, increasing the capacity of the SMR would result in higher flow rates
of syngas feed to the CO2 Recovery Plant. At current conditions, this increase would result in
higher concentrations of CO2 in the feed to the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit and potential
corrosion issues. Therefore, if the capacity of the SMR unit is increased, the CO2 Recovery Plant
capacity should also be increased.
The CO2 Recovery Plant reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Horizon Oil
Sands site by recovering 438,000 tonnes of CO2 each year (2). Under the Alberta climate change
plan, the current price of GHG emissions exceeding the nominal limit is C$30 per tonne of CO2
equivalent (/tCO2e), which is proposed to rise to C$50 /tCO2e by 2022 under Canada’s federal
climate change plan (3; 4). Recovering more CO2 would reduce the GHG emissions compliance
costs and provide economic benefit. Increased recovery of CO2 would also minimize long-term
economic risks from potential increases in carbon prices. Recovering more CO2 is also an
opportunity for additional revenue. CO2 product is utilized in tailings management processes and
can be sold to other facilities in Alberta at a current market price of C$23 per tonne.
CNRL has requested Okane Engineering to complete a capacity augmentation study of the
Horizon Oil Sands CO2 Recovery Plant. The objective of this project is to develop cost-effective
process redesigns of the CO2 Recovery Plant that will increase its existing operating capacity by
1
15% and 25%. The redesigns must increase operating capacity while optimizing CO2 recovery and
energy input.
2. Background
The CNRL Horizon Oil Sands site is a regulated facility under the Carbon Competitiveness
Incentive Regulation (CCIR) and subject to the carbon tax (5; 6). Regulated facilities are not
penalized under the CCIR if their GHG emissions are below a designated limit, which depends on
the industry specific emissions benchmarks. If regulated facilities emit GHGs above the designated
limits, they are subject to compliancy costs calculated based on excess GHG emissions. To
maintain compliancy with the CCIR, these facilities must either reduce their emissions intensity,
purchase Alberta-based carbon offset credits, or make a monetary contribution to Alberta’s
Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF) (7). The cost to purchase carbon
offset credits or contribute to the CCEMF is currently C$30 /tCO2e excess, which could rise to
C$50 /tCO2e by 2022 (8). By increasing the CO2 Removal Unit’s capacity, CNRL would improve
its compliancy with CCIR limits by avoiding significant increases in CO2 emissions that would
have resulted from increased hydrogen production. CNRL may also be eligible to earn emission
offset credits for its GHG reduction, lessening the amount of credits they would have to purchase
for CO2 generation above allocated limits.
Canada produces roughly 2% of global CO2 emissions despite representing only 0.5% of the
world’s population, 10% of which is accounted for by the oil sands alone (9). To encourage
emissions reductions, the Alberta Government implemented the Oil Sands Emissions Limit Act
(Bill 25) in December 2016 which specifies an annual 100 MT GHG emissions limit for all oil
sands sites combined (10). Therefore, oil sands facilities must collectively limit emissions
production to ensure long-term sustainability of the industry (11). Environmental stewardship is a
2
fundamental value of CNRL (12). CNRL has thus developed an integrated GHG emissions
reduction strategy which aims to reduce CNRL’s emissions intensities to below the global crude
average of 63.78 kgCO2e per barrel of crude oil (13; 14; 15). Increased CO2 recovery would
contribute towards this goal and strengthen the company’s position as an industry leader in GHG
emissions reduction. Additional recovered CO2 can also be used to support environmental
initiatives in nearby oil sands facilities who currently truck in purchased CO2 from Edmonton (16).
Examples of initiatives include the Non-Segregating Tailings process and Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) (2; 17).
The current global demand for CO2 is estimated to be 80 megatonnes per annum (MTPA)
and is forecasted to reach 140 MTPA by 2020 (18). At least 50 MTPA is utilized for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) exclusively within North America. The market price for bulk CO2 sold via
pipeline has historically been in the range of C$12 to C$35 per tonne (18). Recovering more CO2
would supply Horizon Oil Sands with additional CO2 that could be sold to other large-scale
facilities in the Fort McKay area to increase profitability.
3. Proposed Solution
Okane Engineering initially proposed that a 115% capacity redesign of the CO2 Recovery
Plant would be achieved within the design limits of the existing equipment. However, further
investigation revealed that the maximum achievable operating capacity using only existing
equipment was 112%. After consultation with the client, a 112% capacity redesign was accepted
in lieu of the 115% capacity redesign.
Okane Engineering proposes two options to increase the CO2 Recovery Plant’s operating
capacity. The first option achieves the desired capacity increase to 125% and requires equipment
additions and modifications. This method requires a large capital expenditure and significantly
3
higher utility usages, raising operating costs as well. However, it achieves the desired 125%
capacity with the potential for further increases through optimization of operating conditions.
The second option achieves an increased capacity to 112% by modifying process operating
conditions and utility usage. It does not require the addition or modification of equipment and thus
no capital expenditure. However, the disadvantage is that the increase in capacity is limited to 12%
with no potential for further increases without capital investment.
Both redesigns would increase the amount of CO2 recovered. This would result in cost
savings by reducing the number of GHG emissions credits purchased and would provide an
opportunity for increased revenue from the sale of additional CO2 recovered. Increasing the CO2
Recovery Plant capacity would also enable more hydrogen production in the SMR, enabling
further increases in SCO production at Horizon Oil Sands.
4. Justification
Appendix A contains the decision analysis criteria used to evaluate the alternatives
considered. First, the options were evaluated against the “must” criteria which included having the
ability to reduce GHG emissions and ability to achieve a minimum capacity increase of 12%.
Options that passed these criteria were then rated and compared quantitatively based on the desired
“wants” of minimizing capital costs, GHG emissions, operating costs, and project execution time.
The addition or modification of process equipment option was chosen for the 125%
capacity redesign. This was due to limitations in the design capacities of the existing equipment
and a lower capital cost relative to the other options. The optimization of process operating
conditions was chosen for the 112% capacity redesign because it was able to achieve a 12%
increase in capacity using only existing equipment, requiring no capital cost.
4
The 25% increase in operating capacity was achieved by changing the packing
configurations in the columns, adding three additional exchangers, and upsizing two drums. The
amount of CO2 recovered is 1435 kmol/h of CO2 which corresponds to an increase of C$5.09 MM
in the annual revenue compared to the base case. The total capital cost is C$14.76 MM with an
increase of C$4.51 MM in the annual operating cost. Based on a 20-year project lifetime and
corporate discount rate of 15%, the NPV is -C$10.69 MM indicating that the 125% capacity
redesign is not economically feasible. For the project to be economically feasible at the current
carbon tax, the selling price of CO2 would need to be C$49 /tCO2 which is unreasonably expensive
for commercial grade CO2. This option was therefore not recommended from an economic
standpoint but was investigated further at the request of the client.
The 12% capacity increase was achieved through optimization of operating pressures and
temperatures within the design limits of the existing equipment. The amount of CO2 recovered was
1278 kmol/h of CO2, corresponding to an increase of C$1.86 MM in the annual revenue compared
to the base case. No capital cost is involved in this redesign. The increase in annual operating cost
is C$0.67 MM. The calculated NPV is C$6.64 MM indicating that the 112% capacity redesign is
economically feasible. Therefore, pursuing the 112% capacity redesign is justified based on the
economic analysis results.
Feedstock availability is not a foreseeable issue as the syngas feed used is a byproduct of the
SMR. The amine make-up required is also very minimal, so amine availability is not a concern.
5. Alternatives Considered
5.1. Do Nothing
In the “Do Nothing” option, no equipment or operational changes are made to the CO2
Removal Unit. This would result in increased CO2 concentrations in the syngas feed to the PSA at
5
higher feed flow rates, resulting in corrosion issues. The CO2 recovery efficiency of the unit would
also decrease as feed rates increase due to process design limitations. This would result in higher
GHG emissions and would progressively cost more in the long-term due to increasing GHG
emissions compliance costs. Thus, this option is economically and environmentally undesirable.
5.2. Replacement of Plant with Gasification System

This option replaces the existing CO2 Recovery Plant with a hydrogen-producing
gasification system. This type of system can produce a high purity CO2 product at increased feed
flow rates without the need for excess dehydration units and is currently used a the North West
Sturgeon Refinery (19). The capital cost of this option is very high due to the major reconstruction
of the plant and reconfigurations of upstream and downstream tie-ins. As a result, this option is
not cost-effective and was therefore rejected.
6. Project Description
The CO2 Removal Unit begins with the syngas inlet stream to the CO2 Absorber and ends
with the CO2 product stream at battery limits. The project scope includes existing equipment within
the battery limits of the CO2 Removal Unit and excludes the dehydration unit, make-up vessels,
pumps, and anti-foam injection system. It does not include upstream or downstream processes,
such as the separation of syngas or processing of syngas through pressure swing adsorption. The
treatment of steam, cooling water, boiler feed water, fuel gas, and natural gas are also not included
in this project scope. A block flow diagram outlining the major processes of the CO2 Recovery
Plant and the identified CO2 Removal Unit project scope is shown in Figure 1. A process flow
diagram (PFD) of the CO2 Removal Unit is shown in Figure 2 and in Appendix E with associated
stream tables.
6
Pressure Swing
Tail Gas
Absorption
Lean Amine
Rich Amine Vendor

CO2 Amine Lean Amine Dehydration
Compression CO2 Product
Absorption Regeneration Unit
Unit
Syngas
Project Scope
Separation
System
Boiler Feed
Water
High
Process Gas Temperature
Reaction
Figure 1: Block Flow Diagram of CO2 Recovery Plant with CO2 Removal Unit Scope Indicated
7
E-80 E-81A/B/C E-82 E-83 E-84 G-81A/B G-82A/B/C G-83A/B G-84

CO2 Absorber Lean/Rich Amine Stripper Reboiler Stripper Overhead Lean Amine Air Semilean Amine HP Lean Amine Stripper Reflux Amine Make-Up
2
Overhead Cooler Exchanger Area: 1150.0 m Condenser Cooler Pump Pump Pump Pump
Area: 85.8 m2 Area: 1190.0 m2 Area: 381.7 m2 Duty: 27838 kW Duty: 120.4 kW Duty: 1158.1 kW Duty: 1.1 kW
C-80 C-81 C-82 C-83 C-87

C-84
CO2 Absorber HP Amine Flash Drum LP Flash Stripper Reflux Vessel Absorber Overhead
Make Up Storage
Volume: 177.0 m3 Volume: 75.4 m3 Volume: 443.0 m3 Volume: 14.8 m 3 K.O. Drum
Vessel
Volume: 5.7 m3 37 CMP49PFD
Synthesis Gas to PSA

E-83
(49-V-400)
28
35 36
E-80
LC
C-83
26 27 CWS CWR
FC LC C-87 95
CWS CWR
LP Condensate 72 77
93
LC
94
FC
96
87 G-83A/B
Synthesis Gas 25
C-80 LC
82
FC
PC C-82
Process Water to
Flash Gas to Steam
Methane Reformer
75
C-81 E-81A/B Battery Limits
83 78 FC
73 74
LC E-82 LP Steam
81
86 76
LP Condensate
85
E-84 84
C-84
LP Steam
LP Condensate G-82A/B/C G-81A/B
G-84
Revamp of Carbon Dioxide Recovery Plant
Amine Solution
4 SEPARATION OF COMPRESSION STAGES FROM MAIN BODY EK 2019/03/08

3 DEHYDRATION UNIT ADJUSTMENT EK 2019/03/01
2 ADJUSTMENT AFTER ACADEMIC ADVISOR MEETING EK 2019/02/23
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM – UNIT 49 – BASE AND 112% CASE
1 ADJUSTMENT AFTER INDUSTRIAL MEETING EK 2019/01/31
0 PFD DRAFT EK 2019/01/23 BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE DATE: 2019/03/01 CN49PFD 4
Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram for the Base Case and 112% Capacity Redesign
8
6.1. Existing Process Design Description – Kaitlin

The CO2 Removal Unit recovers CO2 using an amine solution of aMDEA and water.
aMDEA consists of n-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and a piperazine activator. Piperazine is an
effective CO2 absorption accelerator used in aqueous MDEA solutions. The two key processes of
the CO2 Removal Unit are the absorption of CO2 by lean amine solution and the desorption of CO2
from the rich amine solution which occur in the CO2 Absorber and LP Flash Stripper, respectively.
The absorption and desorption of CO2 by MDEA occur based on the following reactions (20):
2 H2O ⇌ H3O+ + OH-
R3N + H3O+ ⇌ R3NH+ + H2O
CO2 + 2 H2O ⇌ HCO3- + H3O+
HCO3- + H2O ⇌ H3O+ + CO32-
where R3N represents MDEA (C5H13NO2). The resulting net total reaction is:
CO2 + 2 H2O + R3N ⇌ R3NH+ + H3O+ + CO32-
These reactions determine the overall amount of CO2 that can be recovered by the unit.
The PFD of the existing CO2 Recovery Plant is shown in Figure 2. The syngas is fed to the
CO2 Absorber (C-80) at a flow rate of 8217 kmol/h and flows countercurrent against the liquid
lean amine solution. The lean amine solution removes the CO2 from the syngas and exits the
bottom of the column as rich amine solution. The syngas released from the top of the CO2 Absorber
contains less than 3 mol% CO2 and is cooled to 40 °C in the CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler (E-
80). The condensed water is separated and removed in the Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum
(C-87) under level control. The remaining syngas exits the drum and is further treated in the PSA
9
unit. A small amount of LP Condensate is fed to the top of the CO2 Absorber under flow control
to avoid entrainment of amine in the overhead gas.
The rich amine solution exiting the bottom of the CO2 Absorber is directed under level
control to the HP Amine Flash Drum (C-81). Some gas is flashed off and sent to the SMR while
the remaining liquid rich amine is routed to the LP Flash Stripper (C-82). The LP Flash Stripper
consists of an upper flash section and lower stripping section.
In the flash section, CO2 is separated at an operating pressure of 40 kPa(g). The gas exiting
the top of the LP Flash Stripper contains water and 82 mol% CO2 and is cooled in the Stripper
Overhead Condenser (E-83) to 45 °C. The resulting water condensate is removed in the Reflux
Vessel (C-83) and returned to the LP Flash Stripper by the Stripper Reflux Pump (G-83A/B) under
flow control. This prevents the entrainment of amine in the stripper overhead gases. The CO2 rich
gas exiting the top of the Reflux Vessel is routed to the compressor and dehydration units before
going to battery limits. The final CO2 product stream has a 99.9 mol% purity of CO2 and flow rate
of 1188 kmol/h. This translates to 438,000 tonnes of CO2 recovered annually (2; 17).
The semilean amine solution produced in the flash section is withdrawn under level control
into a pumparound loop, where it is heated against the hot lean amine solution from the stripper
bottoms in the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B). The heated semilean amine solution is
returned under level control to the top of the stripping section of the LP Flash Stripper by the
Semilean Amine Pump (G-81A/B).
In the stripping section, the Stripper Reboiler (E-82) heats the column bottoms using low
pressure steam to 114°C at 50 kPa(g) based on a temperature control loop. The vaporized water
and CO2 gas rises countercurrent to the semilean amine solution and removes enough CO2 from
10
the semilean solution to regenerate lean amine solution suitable for use in the CO2 Absorber. The
lean amine exits the bottom of the LP Flash Stripper at 114 °C.
The hot lean amine solution is cooled against the semilean amine solution in the Lean/Rich
Amine Exchanger to 83°C, and then cooled to 45 °C in the Lean Amine Air Cooler (E-84). The
lean amine is routed by the HP Lean Amine Pump (G-82A/B/C) under flow control to the top of
the CO2 Absorber.
Model Verification
The ProMax simulation software by Bryan Research & Engineering (BRE) was used to
model the CO2 Removal Unit. The client provided the material balance for the design basis and
operating data summaries for select equipment which were used as the benchmark for design.
Appendix B contains detailed explanations for simulation assumptions. Appendix C shows the
calculations used to validate the simulation model. More detailed calculations on separation can
be found in Appendix D. The model was validated based on the accuracies of the property package,
separation models, heat exchanger areas, and number of compression stages.
Separation Model Verification
The separation model selected for the CO2 Absorber was the TSWEET Kinetics Model. This
model was recommended by BRE for electrolytic property package environments and for columns
where CO2 is present in one of the feed streams. The separation model used for the LP Flash
Stripper was the TSWEET Absorber/Stripper Model because it was the most accurate in modelling
the desorption of CO2 when compared to the design basis. Model verification was done using the
average absorption factor method outlined by Kremser and Brown, Robbins correlation for
pressure drop, and Eckert generalized pressure drop correlation for vapor flows (21; 22).
11
Areas of Heat Exchange Verification
Heat exchangers in the simulation model were verified by comparing the simulated area of
heat exchange to the area of heat exchange provided in the operating data summary. The simulated
areas were within 5% of the provided heat exchanger areas indicating strong agreement.
Staged Compression Verification
Modelling of the vendor compressor unit in the simulation was validated using calculations
based on isentropic gas compression. The number of calculated required compression stages was
three, which was consistent with the obtained simulation results. The number of compression
stages used was also verified by the client.
6.2. Project Assumptions, Constraints, and Limitations

Assumptions and Constraints
The CO2 Removal Unit uses aMDEA, which was assumed to be 3 wt% piperazine activator
and 97 wt% MDEA. The amine solution makeup was assumed to be 96 wt% aMDEA and 4 wt%
water. The specifications for the inlet streams to the CO2 Absorber were provided by CNRL. These
specifications are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Appendix B. It was assumed that the molar
composition of syngas would remain constant regardless of flow rate.
12
Table 1: Outline of Given Stream Specifications

Stream Units Syngas to CO2 Absorber Lean aMDEA
Phase Vapor -
Mass Flow kg/hr - ~ 584000
3
Volumetric Flow Nm /h 185000 -
Molar Flow kmol/h 8220 21400
Temperature °C 40 45
Pressure kPa(g) 3325 4100
CO mol % 3.3 0.0
CO2 mol % 16.6 0.2
H2 mol % 75.6 0.0
H2O mol % 2.0 90.4
CH4 mol % 4.2 0.0
N2 mol % 0.1 0.0
MDEA with activator mol % 0.0 9.4
The inlet stream compositions, pressures, and temperatures were used as constraints in the
redesign. The CO2 product stream had to have a CO2 purity of 92.0 mol% or higher for redesign.
The syngas feed to the PSA was limited to having a CO2 concentration of 3 mol% or less to prevent
corrosion issues in the downstream equipment. The 3 wt% piperazine concentration was also not
be increased in order to prevent corrosion issues. The CO2 loading for the rich amine was
recommended to be kept between 0.45 and 0.65 mol CO2/mol amine.
At the request of the client, the number of bypasses and recycles were kept to a minimum to
avoid major changes to the existing process design. Thus, bypasses and recycles were avoided as
part of the project constraints.
For modelling of the CO2 Removal Unit in ProMax, additional assumptions were needed to
achieve model convergence. These assumptions are described in detail in Appendix B.
Assumptions included the use of an adiabatic system, negligible changes in inlet and outlet
13
pressures for equipment where pressure drops were not specified, pump efficiencies being 90% of
the hydraulic efficiencies, compressor efficiencies of 80%, and tray weir heights of 5.08 cm (2 in).
Limitations
The simulation model used for design had limited accuracy in modelling the CO2 absorption
process, which was likely due to the property package used. A more accurate custom property
package for the CO2 Removal Unit system could not be developed or purchased due to a lack of
resources. As a result, the stated CO2 recovery efficiencies in the redesigns may have some error.
It is recommended to verify the CO2 recovery efficiencies stated in the redesigns by performing
field tests on the CO2 Absorber.
The constraints of the 112% capacity redesign were the design limits of the existing
equipment, as specified in the given equipment data or based on design calculations using the
simulated base case model. No sizing information was given for the process piping sizes, so sizing
approximations were determined using the provided material balance for the design basis. Velocity
flow limitations must be verified against the existing pipe sizes, as high velocity lines were
identified as potential risks for the 112% and 125% capacity redesigns. Limited information was
provided for the vendor compressor unit, which was approximated using a three-stage compression
process. The capacity of the vendor compressor unit would also need to be verified prior to
execution of the capacity redesigns.
Project Dependencies
The CO2 Removal Unit is a subunit of the CO2 Recovery Plant, which is part of the Hydrogen
Plant. The outlet syngas from the CO2 Absorber passes through the Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum
and is treated in the PSA. Implementing the 112% or 125% capacity redesign will result in an
increased feed flow rate of syngas to the PSA. The ability of the PSA unit to handle the increased
14
feed would need to be evaluated prior to project execution. The redesigns also have higher utility
usages, requiring more cooling water and electricity. This would put extra stress on the cooling
water supply and return headers and electricity power transmission lines. The capability of these
facilities to support the increased demand in utilities would thus need to be verified. The existing
amine make-up vessel is also currently sized to contain the total amount of amine circulated in the
base case for maintenance purposes. In the 112% and 125% capacity redesigns, the amine flow
rates increase, so the ability of the make-up vessel to hold the additional amine would also need to
be verified.
Technical Feasibility
The feasibility of the project is contingent upon the accuracies of the stated assumptions.
The process was simulated using the design basis provided and benchmarked using operating data
of the existing plant. Calculations used to validate equipment modifications can be found in
Appendix D. Where required, additional equipment was added with considerations given to the
space available in the existing plant as indicated by the provided plot plan. Provided that field
testing is done to verify the accuracy of the simulated CO2 Absorber efficiency, the redesigns of
the CO2 Removal Unit outlined in this study are technically feasible.
7. Option A: 125% Capacity Redesign

7.1. Process Description
The 125% capacity design increases the amount of CO2 recovered by modifying operating
pressures and temperatures and by adding and modifying equipment. The changes in operating
setpoints needed to achieve 125% operating capacity are shown by stream in Table 2. The
equipment additions and modifications are summarized in Table 3. A PFD of the 125% capacity
redesign is shown in Figure 3 and in Appendix E with associated stream tables.
15
Table 2: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 125% Capacity Redesign
Stream Description Base Case 125% Case
25 SG to CO2 Absorber Flow Rate 8214 kmol/h 10271 kmol/h
27 SG from CO2 Absorber OH Cooler Temperature 40.0 °C 39.0 °C
36 CO2 to Reflux Vessel Temperature 45.0 °C 41.5 °C
72 Steam Condensate to CO2 Absorber Flow Rate 122 kmol/h 130 kmol/h
86 Lean Amine from Air Cooler aMDEA Flow Rate 2018 kmol/h 2211 kmol/h
86(C) Lean Amine from Air Cooler Temperature 45.0 °C 40 °C
95 Process Condensate to LP Flash Stripper Flow Rate 142 kmol/h 116 kmol/h
- CO2 Absorber Bottom Operating Pressure 3285 kPa(g) 3300 kPa(g)
- LP Flash Stripper Bottom Operating Pressure 50 kPa(g) 55 kPa(g)
Table 3: Equipment Modifications and Additions Required for the 125% Redesign Case
Equipment Tag Description Base Case 125% Case
C-80 CO2 Absorber Packing Type IMTP #40 IMTP #25
C-80 CO2 Absorber Total Packing Height 8.6 m 10.2 m
C-82 LP Flash Stripper Packing Type IMTP #50 IMTP #40
C-83 Stripper Reflux Vessel Volume 14.8 m3 36.8 m3
C-87 Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum Volume 5.7 m3 9.7 m3
E-81A/B(/C) Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger Area 1190 m2 1785 m2
E-85A/B Lean Amine Cooler Area - 815 m2
16
Figure 3: Process Flow Diagram for the 125% Capacity Redesign

17
In the 125% capacity redesign, the process flow remains largely the same as the base case.
The only change is the addition of a Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) downstream of the Lean Amine
Air Cooler (E-84). Like the base case design, the hot lean amine solution is cooled against the
semilean amine solution in the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B/C). The lean amine is then
air cooled to 40 °C in the Lean Amine Air Cooler and flows to the Lean Amine Cooler which cools
the lean amine to 34.7 °C. The HP Lean Amine Pump (G-82A/B/C) is still used under flow control
to pump lean amine to the top of the CO2 Absorber (C-80). In the 125% capacity redesign, the
amount of CO2 product produced is 1435 kmol/h. This is a 20.9% increase from the base case CO2
output of 1187 kmol/h.
CO2 Absorption
The operating pressure at the bottom of the CO2 Absorber (C-80) is increased to raise the
partial pressure of CO2 in the column. The flow rate of aMDEA fed to the column is increased to
allow for better wetting of the packing to increase the effective area for mass transfer in the CO2
Absorber, further increasing absorption rates. The temperature of the lean amine stream is also
lowered to compensate for the heat generated by the exothermic absorption process. These factors
all improve the mass transfer of CO2 to amine solution, increasing the absorption rate of the CO2
Absorber (23). To further increase absorption rates, the existing IMTP #40 packing in the column
is replaced with IMTP #25 to increase the effective area for mass transfer by a factor of 1.4 (22).
The packing height is also increased by 0.8 m in both beds to accommodate an additional 12.1 m3
of packing to further increase the effective area for mass transfer. These changes improve the
efficiency of the CO2 Absorber and maintain a CO2 concentration just below 3.00 mol% in the
outlet syngas. Note that the Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum (C-87) must be upsized in order
to accommodate the increased overhead flow rates and condensate produced.
18
CO2 Desorption
To effectively regenerate lean amine, the packing type in the LP Flash Stripper (C-82) is
changed to IMTP #40 to allow for better stripping of the CO2 from the semilean amine solution.
The bottom operating pressure of the stripper is increased to 55 kPa(g) to accommodate for the
increased pressure drop caused by the smaller packing type. The required flow rate of water recycle
to the LP Flash Stripper for tray backwashing is reduced due to the improved separation efficiency
of the column. An additional exchanger is added to the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B/C)
to recycle more cooling duty in the hot lean amine stream. This minimizes the size of the new Lean
Amine Cooler (E-85A/B). Note that the Reflux Vessel (C-83) must be upsized in order to
accommodate the increased overhead flow rates.
Design Considerations
No further increases in operating capacity were investigated beyond the 25% increase due
to project time constraints and concerns regarding the economic feasibility of design. The 125%
redesign also uses a CO2 loading factor of 0.71 mol CO2/mol amine. This is 0.06 higher than the
recommended limit but is still within the maximum equilibrium CO2 loading capacity of 1.0 mol
CO2/mol amine (24). However, this may cause corrosion issues and should be further evaluated
if implementation of the 125% capacity redesign is pursued. The 125% capacity redesign outlined
in this study is not economically feasible due to the large capital costs for equipment. Further
increases in capacity would likely require more equipment modifications and be less economically
feasible.
Start-Up and Shutdown Considerations
It is recommended to perform a passivation procedure on the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B)
shell after cleaning and prior to commissioning to protect the carbon steel shell from corrosion.
19
Modifications to the existing start-up and shutdown procedures will also be needed to include the
Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B). These changes are outlined in Appendix F.
7.2. Heat Integration

The redesign of the CO2 Removal Unit is classified as a brownfield project. The existing
plot plan was provided, and it had been requested to keep the addition of recycle and bypass
streams to a minimum. Due to limitations in space and restrictions on stream flexibility, the
existing integrated heat exchanger system was optimized instead of proposing a new network.
There are four main process streams that require the addition or removal of heat which are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of Streams Requiring Cooling or Heating for Heat Integration

Stream Stream Description Cooling or Heating Duty Required
(MW)
26 SG from CO2 Absorber Cooling 0.35
35 CO2 from LP Flash Stripper Cooling 2.19
78 Semilean Amine from LP Flash Stripper Heating 27.06
83 Lean Amine from LP Flash Stripper Cooling 31.71
The existing heat integration system transfers heat from the hot lean amine (Stream 83) to
the semilean amine (Stream 78) through the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B) in the
pumparound loop. As the semilean amine is heated and returned to the LP Flash Stripper, some of
the cooling duty required by the hot lean amine is reduced.
To optimize energy input into the 125% case, heat exchange in E-81A/B is maximized by
adding a third unit (E-81C). This is more cost-effective than using two separate heat exchangers
for cooling and heating using cooling water and steam. Although this configuration is not able to
provide the full cooling duty required by the lean amine stream, it reduces the duty of the new
20
Lean Amine Exchanger (E-85A/B) by 8.9 MW which significantly reduces its size and the amount
of cooling water required.
7.3. Material and Energy Balances

The material and energy balances for the 125% case are summarized below in Table 5 and
Table 6. Detailed balances which include the breakdown of the compressor unit energy
consumption are presented in Appendix G. The envelope used for all material and energy balances
is the box shown in Figure 1 which outlines the project scope. The material and energy balances
close with negligible percent differences, indicating that both mass and energy were conserved.
Table 5: 125% Case Overall Material Balance

Material In Material Out
Stream Name Description
(kmol/h) (kmol/h)
25 SG to CO2 Absorber 10271.0 -
Amine Makeup Amine Makeup 1.9 -
IN
Water Makeup Water Makeup 0.1 -

72 Steam Condensate to CO2 Absorber 130.0 -
28 SG from CO2 Recovery Unit - 8813.6
38 CO2 to Dehydration Unit - 1447.9
75 Flash Gas from HP Amine Flash Drum - 17.0
Process Condensate to BL Process
OUT
96 -
Water Header 36.7
Amine Blowdown Amine Blowdown - 0.0
Water Blowdown Water Blowdown - 0.0
37C Stage 1 Compressor K.O. Vessel - 64.9
37G Stage 2 Compressor K.O. Vessel - 23.0
Total (kmol/h) 10403.1 10403.0
Percent Difference 0.0%
21
Table 6: 125% Case Overall Energy Balance

Energy In Energy Out
(kW) (kW)
25 SG to CO2 Absorber -206,676 -
Amine Makeup Amine Makeup -211 -
IN
Water Makeup Water Makeup -12 -

72 Steam Condensate to CO2 Absorber -10,258 -
28 SG from CO2 Recovery Unit - -48,497
38 CO2 to Dehydration Unit - -158,205
75 Flash Gas from HP Amine Flash Drum - -1,090
OUT
96 - -2,898
Water Header
Amine Blowdown Amine Blowdown - 0
Water Blowdown Water Blowdown - 0
37C Stage 1 Compressor K.O. Vessel - -5,124
37G Stage 2 Compressor K.O. Vessel - -1,822
E-80 CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler - 1,107
E-82 Stripper Reboiler 31,600 -
E-83 Stripper Overhead Condenser - 2,190
EQUIPMENT
E-84 Lean Amine Air Cooler - 24,870

E-85A/B Lean Amine Cooler - 3,467
G-81A/B Semilean Amine Pump 123 -
G-82A/B/C HP Lean Amine Pump 1,185 -
G-83A/B Stripper Reflux Pump 1 -
Compressor Unit - 1825
Total (kW) -152,103 -152,047
7.4. Equipment List and Sizing

The detailed list of equipment for the 125% case and sizing calculations are presented in
Appendix H. Operating data provided by the client for select pieces of equipment are also included
in this appendix. Methodologies from Gas Processors Suppliers Association (GPSA) Engineering
Data Book, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, and Process Heat Transfer by Kern (1950)
were employed in the sizing of equipment. Equipment sizing is preliminary and performed to the
22
level required for economic evaluation except for the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B). Detailed
design of this exchanger is shown in Appendix I.
Columns
The two main columns in the process are the CO2 Absorber and the LP Flash Stripper.
Column separation efficiencies, tray spacings, and packing, disengagement, and liquid pool
heights were validated for the existing column heights and diameters. These calculations can be
found in Appendix D. The additional separation capacities required for redesign were satisfied by
changing the type and volume of packing in the existing columns. Increased pressure drops were
resolved by increasing the operating pressures.
Table 7: Summary of Column Specifications

Diameter Length Volume Material of
Tag Item Description Quantity
(mm) (mm) (m3) Construction
CO2 Absorber Shell 3100 23500 177 CS
C-80
IMTP #25 Packing 77 SS 316
Montz-Thormann Tray 3 SS 316
LP Flash Stripper Shell 3800 39100 443 CS/SS 316L
C-82
IMTP #40 Packing 181 SS 316
Montz-Thormann Tray 3 SS 316
Heat Exchangers
The use of existing heat exchangers was maximized in the 125% capacity redesign. The heat
transfer coefficients of the existing exchangers were derived using operating data and were used
to calculate the heat exchanger areas required for redesign. Part of the increased cooling duty
required in the 125% redesign is met by adding a third plate and frame heat exchanger E-81C (595
m2) to the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B). This is a very compact unit, so the footprint
required is minimal compared to a shell and tube heat exchanger. The remaining cooling duty
required is supplied by the additional Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B). The temperature difference
23
required two shell passes and four tube passes which are met by two 1-2 heat exchangers with U-
tube bundles placed in series. This eliminates gaskets that are prone to leaking and minimizes the
footprint required, as the exchangers are stacked on top of each other. A temperature transmitter
with a high temperature alarm set at 45°C is located on the lean amine outlet. At 45°C, the CO2
concentration is significantly higher than 3 mol%, resulting in potential corrosion issues in the
PSA unit. The temperature transmitter is also used in conjunction with a control valve to set the
flow rate of cooling water to the heat exchanger. The existing flow transmitter located downstream
of the Lean Amine Cooler is used to control the flow rate of lean amine to the CO2 Absorber.
Table 8: Summary of Heat Exchanger Specifications

Duty Area Material of
Tag Description Type
(MW) (m2) Construction
CO2 Absorber Shell: SS 316L
E-80 Shell and Tube 0.2 86
Overhead Cooler Tube: SS 316L
Lean/Rich Amine
E-81A/B/C Plate and Frame 27.0 1785 SS 316L
Exchanger
Shell: CS
E-82 Stripper Reboiler Kettle Reboiler 31.6 1150
Tube: SS 316L
Stripper Overhead Shell: SS 316L
E-83 Shell and Tube 2.2 382
Condenser Tube: SS 316L
E-84 Lean Amine Air Cooler Air Cooler 24.8 - CS
Shell: CS
E-85A/B Lean Amine Cooler Shell and Tube 3.5 813
Tube: SS 316L
Vessels
The vessels for this process are primarily used for vapour-liquid phase separation. The
existing HP Amine Flash Drum (C-81) was sufficient for operation at 125% capacity. However,
the Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum (C-87) and Reflux Vessel (C-83) required larger diameters to
achieve effective separation at the increased flow rates. The gravity settling approach and Souders-
24
Brown approach were used to determine the minimum dimensions required to obtain effective
separation. Vessel thickness was calculated according to ASME Section VIII Division 1.
Table 9: Summary of Vessel Specifications

Diameter Length Volume Thickness Material of
Tag Description
(mm) (mm) (m3) (mm) Construction
C-81 HP Amine Flash Drum 2200 19840 75 11.4 CS/ SS 316L
C-83 Reflux Vessel 2500 7500 37 4.3 SS 304L
Absorber Overhead
C-87 1600 4800 10 30.1 CS
K.O. Drum
Pumps
Pump capacities as well as maximum and minimum pressures were maintained within the
allowable ranges stated in the operating data given by the client for the 125% capacity redesign.
No additional pumps were required for this case. However, the power consumption of the pumps
increased slightly due to more shaft power being required at higher flow rates. Overall pump
efficiencies were assumed to be 90% of hydraulic efficiencies given by the client.
Table 10: Summary of Pump Specifications

Total
Shaft
Dynamic Overall Material of
Tag Description Type Power
Head Efficiency Construction
(kW)
(m)
G-81 Semilean Amine Pump Centrifugal 123.1 47 67.5% SS 316L
G-82 HP Lean Amine Pump Centrifugal 1156.0 410 59.4% SS 316L
G-83 Stripper Reflux Pump Centrifugal 1.0 49 36.0% SS 304L
Compressors
In the PFD provided by the client, the compression of CO2 was shown as a single vendor
unit with a note stating that compressors, interstage coolers, and knockout drums were included.
Due to the lack of information, the vendor compressor unit was approximated using the three-stage
25
compression process shown in Appendix E based on calculations shown in Appendix C. If the
required compression could be achieved within three stages, it was assumed that the existing
vendor unit was sufficient. In the 125% capacity redesign, only three stages of compression were
needed, so the vendor unit was deemed to be sufficient. The maximum allowable discharge
temperature used for the compressors was 150°C based on GPSA recommendations (21).
Table 11: Summary of Compressor Specifications

Fluid Discharge
Compression Polytropic Material of
Tag Description Power Temperature
Ratio Efficiency Construction
(kW) (°C)
CO2 Product
K-100 1831.0 3.1 80.0% 150 SS 316L
Compressor 1
CO2 Product
K-101 1699.6 3.0 80.0% 150 SS 316L
Compressor 2
CO2 Product
K-102 1540.6 2.9 80.0% 147 SS 316L
Compressor 3
Process Piping
Information on the existing process pipe sizes was not provided by the client. Due to the lack
of information, the existing pipe sizes were approximated using the material balance for the design
basis provided by the client, taking into consideration pressure drops for single-phase and two-
phase flow, pump suction lines, and guidelines for minimizing erosion-corrosion in amine units.
Based on the flow rates in the 125% capacity redesign, the piping fluid velocities are mostly within
acceptable ranges indicating that existing piping sizes are sufficient. However, streams 35, 36, and
37 were found to have expected velocities above recommended values. A table listing the nominal
pipe size, schedule, material specification, expected velocity, and type of flow through all main
process lines can be found in Appendix H. Calculations for the process lines sizing are also
included in this appendix.
26
Materials of Construction
Detailed analyses of the material selection and corrosion mechanisms identified for this
project can be found in Appendix H. In the CO2 Removal Unit, the primary degradation
mechanism is amine corrosion. Amine corrosion refers to the general or localized corrosion that
occurs primarily on carbon steel in amine treating processes. It results from dissolved acid gases
(e.g. CO2), amine degradation products, heat stable amine salts and other contaminants (25; 26).
Low-carbon and stabilized grades of austenitic steels have successfully been used in areas of high
corrosion rates due to their high strength and corrosion resistance over a wide range of operating
conditions.
To protect against amine corrosion, corrosion prone areas were constructed out of ASTM
A358 Type 304L and Type 316L stainless steel. Corrosion prone areas were identified as regions
having high acid gas loading, high flow velocities, turbulent flow, flow impingement, vapour
flashing, two-phase flow, and operating temperatures over 110 °C. Regions with low acid gas
concentrations or lower operating temperatures were less prone to amine corrosion. These regions
were constructed of ASTM A106 Grade B carbon steel, which costs less but still has high strength.
ASTM A333 Grade 6 killed carbon steel was used at the bottom of the LP Flash Stripper due to
higher operating temperatures. Type 316L stainless steel has higher corrosion resistance in
chloride containing environments, so it was preferentially selected for equipment and lines
circulating process or cooling water (27).
7.5. Utility Requirements

Table 12 summarizes the additional utility requirements need to support 125% operating
capacity. The calculations used to determine these values are presented in Appendix J. The
additional utility requirements for the 125% capacity redesign include increased cooling water
27
demands for heat exchangers and higher electricity usages for the pumps, air cooler, and
compressors. CNRL is currently purchasing about 70 MW from the Alberta power grid (16).
Therefore, the additional electricity requirements for the 125% capacity redesign were assumed to
be purchased from the Alberta power grid.
Cooling water will be recycled and reused throughout the operation to minimize water intake.
Any additional water utility required is sourced from the Athabasca River (28). Since the duty of
the Stripper Reboiler (E-82) is the same as the base case, no additional steam was required.
Additional makeup amine was required due to the increase in the amount of amine circulating. The
makeup amine in the base case was 0.00006% of the total flow rate, which was the same percentage
used in the 125% capacity redesign to estimate makeup amine requirements.
Table 12: Additional Utility Requirements for 125% Capacity Redesign

Utility Makeup Amine Electricity Cooling Water
Comparison (kg/h) (kWh) (m3/h)
Base Case Usage 0.135 5483 566
125% Case Usage 0.148 6634 931
Increase from Base Case 0.013 1151 365
7.6. Project Execution Strategy

Successful completion of an engineering project relies heavily on a well-developed project
execution strategy. The Direct Field Labour (DFL) hours calculated using the equipment purchase
costs and the average hourly rates for labour were used to plan an appropriate design to
commissioning timeline. The project execution strategy is composed of four distinct stages, which
are engineering, procurement planning, construction, and commissioning. The detailed timeline
for this project is outlined in Figure 4, with critical path items indicated in red. The project is
estimated to take 23 months from the start of engineering to the full operation of the facility.
28
Figure 4: Project Execution Schedule

29
Engineering Plan
The engineering timeline of this project is composed of three phases. The first phase is the
Basis of Design (BOD), which is the development of the project scope, design basis memorandum,
block flow diagram, and completion of research for technological evaluation. The second phase is
Front End Engineering Design (FEED), which requires the completion of the process simulation,
PFD, P&ID, plot plan, preliminary sizing and economics, and preliminary safety and risk analyses.
The BOD and FEED phases taken together make up the basic engineering design, which is 3
months of the total engineering timeline. Upon completion of the BOD and FEED phases, the
design proposal is submitted to the client for review. Once approved, the third phase begins, which
is detailed engineering. Based on the current project timeline, detailed engineering design would
commence in April 2020. This phase involves the work of various engineering disciplines,
including process drawings, structural and mechanical designs for all major pieces of equipment,
detailed piping designs, electrical instrumentation and control designs, and Hazard and Operability
Studies (HAZOPs). The estimated duration for the detailed engineering phase is 4 months.
Procurement Plan
The procurement plan will commence upon the completion of the engineering plan which
occurs in August 2020. The procurement plan outlines procedures for vendor selection, equipment
ordering and fabrication, equipment transportation and logistics, and labour acquisition. Vendor
selection and quote acquisition is selected carefully based on the project being primarily cost
driven as opposed to schedule driven. To maximize the economics of this project, a competitive
bidding process will be conducted for each piece of equipment that is ordered. To minimize the
project execution time, the procurement phase overlaps with the engineering phase and bidding
begins while the detailed engineering phase is still in process. The total duration of the procurement
30
plan is estimated to be 8 months from the onset of the bidding process to the onsite delivery of the
final piece of equipment.
Construction Plan
This phase involves the installation of equipment, piping, instrumentation, and electrical
components along with initial equipment testing and inspection. The equipment installations and
modifications required must be done while the CO2 Recovery Plant is in shutdown. Construction
work is thus scheduled during the annual sitewide Horizon Oil Sands outage that occurs in
September. A significant amount of field work is completed during this time. Proper planning and
coordination of the CO2 Removal Unit work scope with other site work is thus expected to take 3
months. Construction planning is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2021 with construction work
beginning on September 7, 2021. The replacement of packing in the columns is estimated to take
the longest amount of time due to the welding and post weld heat treatment required for the support
rings. Installation of the heat exchangers and drums is expected to take less time as they are
installed as pre-assembled modules. The total duration is expected to be 7 months.
Commissioning Plan
Upon the completion of the construction phase of the project, the commissioning of the
facility will commence on October 2021. This final stage of the project timeline involves the final
equipment testing and monitoring such that it meets all applicable safety and environmental
regulations. Production testing and troubleshooting is done onstream after start-up of the unit. This
phase is expected to be 4 months in duration, and the project is scheduled to close by December
2021.
31
Project Management Schedule

The total fixed capital expenditure is divided into engineering, procurement, and
construction phases. Detailed calculations made to obtain the capital expenditure and manpower
profiles for the project management schedule are presented in Appendix K. As shown in Section
7.7.2, the engineering expense of the project is 18% of the total module cost plus contingency,
prorated based on the estimated fixed capital expenditure. The calculated DFL hours for this
project is approximately 86,000 hours based on the DFL cost of C$5.43 MM at a base labour rate
of $36 per hour. Using the relationship presented in K.M. Guthrie (1974), this number of DFL
hours gives an onsite construction duration of approximately 12 months when taking into account
the winter location factor and the limited construction work being done during that time (29).
Figure 5 displays the manpower distribution for labour and engineering throughout the project
timeline.
Figure 5: Manpower Distribution for Engineering and Labour
32
7.7. Economic Analysis

Economic Introduction
The economic feasibility of the 125% capacity redesign was largely determined based on
the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). A discounted cash flow analysis was
also used to determine the economic feasibility of the project. The economic analysis outlined in
this report is a Class 4 preliminary cost estimation as defined by the Association for the
Advancement of Cost Estimating (AACE) with an accuracy of -30% to +50% (30). Detailed
calculations, tables, and assumptions for the project economics can be found in Appendix J. The
economic analysis for this project is based on the difference in the amount of CO2 recovered
compared to the base case. It is assumed that all additional CO2 recovered can be sold. The goal is
to have the increased revenue from the additional CO2 recovered pay off the initial investment and
additional operating costs for the 20-year project lifetime. CNRL uses 50% of the current CO2
produced for their Non-Segregating Tailings process (31). This value was assumed to be static
across the capacity redesigns based on client input and was thus not factored into the revenue
calculations. Additionally, the infrastructure used to export the CO2 by truck is assumed to already
be in place. Unless otherwise specified, all prices are expressed in Canadian dollars.
Fixed Capital Expenditure
All equipment was costed using the equipment based costing method outlined in Ulrich &
Vasudevan except for the IMTP random packing for the CO2 Absorber (C-80) and LP Flash
Stripper (C-82) (32). The packing was costed based on quotes provided by Koch-Glitsch. Figure
6 displays the breakdown of the total fixed capital expenditure of $13.42 MM. The breakdown of
the equipment purchase cost and the detailed calculations used to estimate the capital costs for this
project are included in Appendix J. Guidelines from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
33
were referred to when determining the contingencies for the project (33). The process contingency
was 0% because the process is already in commercial use and well studied, as it is an existing plant.
The proposed 125% capacity redesign is considered to be at the preliminary stage. Thus, the project
contingency used was 40%. A 7% contractor fee, 18% engineering and procurement cost, 3%
owner’s cost, and 4% commissioning and start-up cost were also applied to obtain the total fixed
capital cost of the project (33). An exchange rate of 1.33 was used to convert from USD to CAD
(34). The target Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) from November 2018 was 616.4,
with a base reference of 2004 with a CEPCI of 400 (35).
Figure 6: Fixed Capital Expenditure Breakdown
7.7.2.1. Location Effects

The DFL analysis is outlined in Appendix J and lists the justifications and weightings for
each DFL factor used. A factor of 1.25 was applied to the US Gulf Coast estimates to account for
the Alberta location. Since the project site is located in Fort McMurray, an additional Fort
McMurray adjustment factor of 1.25 was applied. A winter work factor of 1.30 was applied to
34
account for reduced productivity from November 31 to March 1 (36). Limited work will be done
during the winter based on the project schedule, so the percent applicability was limited to 5%.
7.7.2.2. Field vs. Shop Fabrication

Shop fabrication is preferred for this project as it would reduce the project execution time.
Modular installation of equipment, such as heat exchangers and drums, is faster than onsite
fabrication. Shop fabrication can also produce higher quality fabrication through the use of
specialized machining equipment that cannot be brought to site. The heat exchangers and drums
required for the 125% capacity redesign will be delivered to site in pre-assembled modules to allow
for efficient installation during the outage period. This method is also economically beneficial as
the labour force required onsite is reduced. Installation of the packing support rings in the CO2
Absorber (C-80) cannot be done in the shop. The support trays will have to be shipped in and then
welded into the column onsite during the outage, requiring some degree of field fabrication.
Working Capital Expenditure

The working capital cost of this project was estimated based on the amount of additional raw
materials and spare parts inventory required to keep the facility in operation. The recommended
range for working capital expenditure was 10 to 20% of the fixed capital expenditure (32). Since
the CO2 Removal Unit is relatively small and the 125% capacity redesign does not add a significant
number of equipment, the working capital is chosen to be 10% of the total fixed capital, which in
this case is $1.34 MM. The loss in amine solution due to operation is also minimal, which also
justifies a smaller working capital estimation.
Operating Cost
Appendix J includes the detailed calculations, assumptions, and tables made to estimate the
operating expenditure for the 125% capacity increase. The prices of utilities used to calculate the
35
operating cost were provided by the client and are shown in Table 13. Figure 7 presents the
operating cost breakdown in the form of a pie chart. Percentages from Ulrich & Vasudevan were
adjusted based on the project circumstances to calculate the direct, indirect, and general expenses
(32). The increase in annual operating cost for the 125% capacity redesign compared to the base
case was determined to be $4.51 MM.
Table 13: Utility Cost Summary

Utility Unit Cost Additional Annual Expense
(x103 $)
Makeup Amine $12.25/kg 1.3
Electricity $0.12/kWh 840
Cooling Water $0.07/m3 206
Figure 7: Operating Cost Breakdown for the 125% Capacity Increase
The sources of revenue for this project are the sale of CO2 production to other facilities and
the cost savings generated from having to purchase fewer GHG emissions credits. The market
demand for CO2 in the Fort McMurray region is from other oil and gas facilities who use CO2 for
EOR or CCS initiatives. The sale price of CO2 has historically been between $12 and $35 /tCO2
36
(18). Based on this range, the price of CO2 used to calculate revenue was chosen to be $23 /tCO2.
GHG emissions credits are currently priced at $30/tCO2e, which was the value used to determine
revenue. The resulting estimated annual revenue was $5.09 MM.
Financing Plan
Since this project is sponsored by CNRL, financing costs are not included as part of the
capital budget. CNRL is a large company with a steady cash flow profile and is assumed to have
sufficient capital to fund the project using their own resources. There would be no need for loans
from banks or private companies. Therefore, an investment schedule was not developed for this
project.
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis

Figure 8 displays the project cash flow diagram over the 20-year project lifetime. Detailed
calculations and cash flow tables are presented in Appendix J. A corporate discount rate of 15%,
hurdle rate of 20%, inflation rate of 3%, and provincial income tax rate of 27% were used. The
Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) was 15% for the first operating year and 30% for every subsequent
year based on process plants which fall under Asset Class 43 (37).
Figure 8: Discounted Cash Flow Profile for the 125% Case
37
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine which factors have the greatest impact
on the project’s economic feasibility. Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the sensitivity analysis
results with respect to NPV and IRR, respectively. Fixed capital, operating cost, and utility unit
prices were varied by 10% to investigate their effects on the NPV and IRR. Since the onstream
factor cannot be greater than 1.0, a variation of 5% from the assumed 0.92 value was used. The
sale price of CO2 and cost of GHG emissions credits were also varied. The historical range for the
sale price of CO2 was $12 to $35 CAD /tCO2, so these boundaries were taken as the lower and
upper limits of the variable (18). To account for the possibility of GHG emissions credits rising
from $30 /tCO2e to $50 /tCO2e due to the federal climate plan, $50 /tCO2e was taken as the upper
limit. At a price of $12 /tCO2, an IRR could not be obtained due to divergence. The figures show
that the variation in onstream factor and utility prices are shown to have little effect on both the
project NPV and IRR. The most influential parameters are the price of GHG emissions credits and
sale price of CO2.
Figure 9: NPV Tornado Diagram for the 125% Case
38
Figure 10: IRR Tornado Diagram for the 125% Case
Economic Conclusions
The 125% capacity redesign is not economically feasible. The increase in revenue is not
enough to offset the initial fixed and working investments of $13.42 MM and $1.34 MM,
respectively. This ultimately results in a negative NPV of -$10.69 MM and negative IRR of -0.36%.
Assuming the GHG emission credit price remains at $30 /tCO2e, a CO2 sale price of C$49 /tCO2
would be needed to achieve economic feasibility at a hurdle rate of 20%. Considering that the unit
is producing commercial grade CO2 and that this price is outside of the historical range, this price
is highly unlikely to occur in the near future (18). However, it may be worthwhile to re-evaluate
this option if the carbon tax or CO2 market selling price changes substantially under different
regulatory scenario.
7.8. Environmental Analysis

The only waste streams identified for the CO2 Removal Unit are fugitive emissions of
vapours from equipment due to irregular venting or unintended release such as leaks. These
39
fugitive emissions are small in comparison to leakage emissions from mine faces, tailings ponds,
and other facilities onsite. No additional reporting requirements are necessary under the Specified
Gas Reporting Regulation under the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (38; 39).
CNRL participates in local and regional monitoring programs to ensure a high standard of
air quality for its stakeholders (40). CNRL is an active participant in the Wood Buffalo
Environmental Association which continuously monitors a number of air pollutants, including
NOX, SOX, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (41). There is no expected increase
in these parameters as a direct result of this project. Consequently, no changes to existing and
approved air quality under the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines is expected
(42).
Increasing the capacity of the CO2 Removal Unit would reduce the overall GHG emissions
in the upgrader facility, which is a key environmental metric for this project. The 125% redesign
case captures 95,453 tCO2e/yr more than the “do nothing” alternative, which is equivalent to
removing approximately 20,750 passenger vehicles from the road (43). The increased CO2
recovery would help slow the rate at which global warming is occurring, slowing the increase in
global mean temperatures. It would also contribute to CNRL’s goal of reducing their emissions
intensity to below the global crude average (13). Further studies would be required to determine
the overall net GHG emissions reduction that is achieved when taking into account other units
affected by the feed flow rate increase, such as the PSA unit and downstream dehydration unit.
Supporting the increased utilities requirements may also affect the net GHG emissions reduction.
The increased CO2 recovery would also have large implications in terms of the cost of the
carbon levy imposed on GHG emissions by the Climate Leadership Regulation under the Climate
40
Leadership Act, and enforced by the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation under the
Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (44; 45; 5; 39).
The Water Act Licence No. 00186921-01-00 for CNRL enforces a maximum diversion rate
of 66.1 MMm3/yr of water from surface water sources, which is equivalent to drawing 3.1 m3/s of
water from the Athabasca River (46). The 125% redesign case would increase the cooling water
requirements of the CO2 Removal Unit by 0.101 m3/s. This marginal increase is not likely to be an
issue. However, limited information was provided regarding the current water draw from surface
water sources. Further study would be required to assess the impact of the additional cooling water
requirements, with consideration given to periods of low-flow in the Athabasca River.
Environmental Conclusions
The proposed project will meet or exceed all applicable environmental regulations and will
recover 95,452 tCO2e/yr more than the “do nothing” case. The project will demonstrate a strong
commitment to environmental stewardship by CNRL and contribute to the environmental
sustainability of the oil sands industry. Furthermore, the project would contribute to CNRL’s long-
term goal of reducing emissions intensity, which is a significant environmental driver for this
project. Additional studies would be needed to determine the net impact on Horizon Oil Sands’
overall GHG emissions, taking into account the other units at the facility which are outside of this
project scope.
7.9. Safety and Risk Analysis

Proper identification, evaluation, and management of risk is necessary to mitigate health,
safety, environmental, legal, financial, and social consequences. Risk management methodologies
were conducted according to the “Guideline for Management of Risk in Professional Practice”
published by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)
41
(47). For this project, several different hazard identification methods and risk assessment tools
were utilized, including: a What If? Process Hazard Analysis (PHA), a HAZOP, and analysis of
the DOW Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) and Chemical Exposure Index (CEI). The complete
safety and risk assessment can be found in Appendix L.
Identification of Hazards and Safety Risks

A checklist PFD based analysis was conducted during the early stages of the project to
identify the potential hazards and safety risks for all process equipment and streams. Primary
process hazards identified from the checklist PFD based analysis included overpressurization of
equipment resulting in leakage or rupture, increased erosion in piping due to higher flow velocities
in the capacity redesign cases, and loss of containment of syngas with the potential for fire or
explosion.
What If? Process Hazard Analysis

A “What If? Analysis” PHA was conducted on the PFD to identify high-level hazards in the
CO2 Removal Unit. The PFD was divided into four nodes based on commodity streams. The
hazards identified using the checklist PFD based analysis were used to guide the formulation of
several What If? questions, which described different hazardous scenarios that could occur within
each node. The causes and consequences of these hazards were quantitatively evaluated using the
CNRL corporate risk matrix. An initial risk rating was assigned to each hazardous scenario
assuming no safeguards or controls were in place. This was then re-evaluated based on the
engineering safeguards and administrative controls assumed to be in place at Horizon Oil Sands.
After the safeguards and controls were accounted for, recommendations for further risk reduction
were developed for hazards that had unacceptable or conditionally tolerable levels of residual risk.
The full What If? analysis and PHA worksheets can be found in Appendix L.
42
Hazard and Operability Study

A HAZOP was completed on the P&ID created for the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) to
analyze the risks introduced by the new piece of equipment. The complete HAZOP analysis as
well as the full list of recommendations and implications can be found in Appendix L. Process
deviations that could occur due to unexpected operating conditions were evaluated for four
operating states, including commissioning, steady state, start-up, and shutdown. The causes,
consequences, and risk rating evaluation were then completed using the method described in
Section 7.9.2.
Engineering safeguards were incorporated into the design of the Lean Amine Cooler to keep
residual risks at an as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) level. The safety and control
mechanisms designed for the Lean Amine Cooler are shown in the P&ID in Appendix E. Two
pressure relief devices were designed according to the American Petroleum Institute Standards
520 and 521, and methods outlined in GPSA. The set pressure of the pressure safety valve (PSV)
located on the cooling water return line is 1354 kPa(g) and was designed to protect against
overpressurization caused by the vaporization of cooling water during blockage. The set pressure
on the pressure relief valve (PRV) located on the lean amine inlet is 6044 kPa(g) and was designed
for thermal relief in the event that the lean amine temperature rises and results in thermal expansion
of the fluid. Detailed PSV and PRV sizing calculations can be found in Appendix M. Two double
block and bleed valves located on the outlet streams and four block valves located on all four
corners ensure that the exchanger can be properly isolated and depressurized for maintenance or
cleaning. A vent and drain were placed on the high and low points of the exchanger to allow the
process fluids to be evacuated.
43
Other safeguards identified for the Lean Amine Cooler included the verification of the
correct valve failure response positions, proper material selection, and use of a comprehensive and
frequent inspection, cleaning, and equipment maintenance program. Other recommendations from
the HAZOP analysis included evaluation of the identified high velocity lines, and updating of the
existing operating, start-up, and shutdown procedures to include the modifications listed in the
125% capacity redesign. Additionally, the CO2 loading factor for the 125% capacity redesign is
0.71 mol CO2/mol amine, which is 0.06 higher than the recommended maximum loading factor of
0.65 mol CO2/mol amine. This should be evaluated for any potential impacts on equipment
reliability or performance.
Chemical Exposure Index

The feed stream for the CO2 absorption process contains syngas, which contains carbon
monoxide and is known to be flammable and toxic at ambient conditions. In a process breach
scenario, this could potentially be released into the atmosphere, posing a severe risk to the health
and safety of nearby personnel. A Dow CEI was calculated around stream 26, which had the
highest temperature, pressure, and concentration of carbon monoxide. All relevant calculations
can be found in Appendix L. It was found that a rupture in this stream would result in the largest
airborne release of gas. ERPG-1 is not included in the analysis since it is an odorless gas. Table
14 shows the CEI and the hazard distances for ERPG-2 and ERPG-3 for the base case compared
to the 125% design case. Figure 11 shows the exposure radii to scale.
Table 14: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table

Cases Base Case 125% Design Case
Chemical Exposure Index 164.9 184.4
ERPG-2 (m) 1649 1844
ERPG-3 (m) 1382 1545
44
Figure 11: Chemical Exposure Radii by ERPG Level Overlaid on Satellite Imagery for the 125%
Case
Emergency contingencies should be in place to evacuate individuals within the ERPG-2
hazard radius. As shown in Figure 11, the radius is limited to the eastern quadrant of the Horizon
Oil Sands plant. However, the outer radius of both ERPG-2 and ERPG-3 breach the administrative
building where most of the personnel would be located. The radius of ERPG-2 does not extend
beyond the site so there are no immediate risks to communities nearby the site, but communities
and counties nearby should be notified so that encroachment does not occur.
The exposure radii are based on the assumption of a five-minute continuous release.
Considering that the area of operation is located outdoors, the carbon monoxide would most likely
45
dissipate into the atmosphere as soon as a breach in the equipment occurs. Therefore, the identified
exposure radii are considered to be a very conservative estimate.
Fire and Explosion Index

A Dow F&EI was completed for the CO2 Absorber (C-80), Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum
(C-87), and HP Lean Amine Flash Drum (C-81) for the base case and 125% capacity redesign.
Table 15 below shows the summary of the F&EI, exposure radius, capital loss, and business
interruptions for the three pieces of equipment for each case. Detailed calculations for the F&EI
can be found in Appendix L. The CO2 Absorber and Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum had the
highest pressure and concentration of synthesis gas, resulting in the largest exposure radius for
equipment containing synthesis gas. The HP Lean Amine Flash Drum had the highest pressure and
concentration of lean amine out of the process, resulting in the largest exposure radius for
equipment containing lean amine.
None of the equipment in the 125% capacity redesign is classified as dangerous according
to the Dow F&EI, as none of the index values exceeded 128. The placement of the Lean Amine
Cooler (E-85A/B) was thus more dependent on access considerations rather than the exposure
radius, as the safety risk due to poor access was higher than that identified by the DOW F&EI.
Table 15. Fire and Explosion Index Summary Table for the 125% Redesign Case
Base Case 125% Design Case
Equipment Number C-80 C-81 C-87 C-80 C-81 C-87
Fire & Explosion Index 72.03 42.88 71.86 76.17 42.95 75.79
Radius of Exposure (m) 18.49 11.01 18.04 19.55 11.02 19.45
Maximum Probable Property Damage
0.99 0.69 1.40 1.09 0.69 1.52
(MM CAD)
Maximum Probable Days Outage 20 15 25 21 15 30
Business Interruption (MM CAD) 0.41 0.31 0.52 5.28 0.38 0.75
46
Applicable Safety Regulations and Codes Requirements

The pressure equipment and piping located within the facility, as well as the electrical, gas,
and plumbing systems are bound by the Alberta Safety Codes Act and must adhere to applicable
codes and regulations under the act including the CSA C22.1-18 Canadian Electrical Code,
National Plumbing Code of Canada 2015, Fire Code and Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation
(48; 49; 50; 51; 52). Additionally, all employers, workers, suppliers, contractors, and other project
personnel must conduct their business according to the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety
(OHS) Act, OHS Regulation, and OHS Code, as well as the Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and
Health Regulations under the Canada Labour Code (53; 54; 55; 56; 57). These regulations affect
the construction, testing, installation, operation, repair, and maintenance of equipment, and must
be followed to ensure that the facility operates in a safe and legal manner. A full list of applicable
regulations and standards for this project is included in Appendix L.
Health and Safety Risk Management Conclusions

Completion of multiple hazard identification and risk assessment methodologies has allowed
Okane Engineering to identify proper safeguards for minimizing project risks to an ALARP level.
Compliance with the identified safety regulations and code requirements ensures that the project
will operate in a safe manner with proper risk management throughout the facility’s lifetime.
7.10. Net Social Benefit Analysis

Net social benefit is the increase in the welfare of a society that is derived from a particular
course of action (58). The net social benefit for the 125% redesign case was evaluated based on
several factors, including the potential contributions to the local and regional economy, noise,
traditional land and resource use, and effect on human health. A full list of considered factors and
detailed analysis of net social benefit can be found in Appendix N.
47
Increasing the capacity of the CO2 removal unit to 125% capacity would reduce overall GHG
emissions of the Horizon Oil Sands facility by 95,452 tCO2e/yr more than the base case. There is
also the potential to reduce the carbon footprint of other oil sands facilities, by selling the additional
CO2 recovered to other facilities around the Fort McMurray area to be used for EOR, tailings
management, or other CCS methods. The 125% capacity redesign would also generate a corporate
income tax revenue for the provincial government of C$3.12 MM over the project lifetime. During
the design and construction phases, the 125% redesign case would also see business and
employment opportunities for qualified local or regional contractors and businesses.
There are minimal negative impacts to society identified for the 125% redesign case. There
would be marginally increased noise around the CO2 Removal Unit due to pump motors operating
at higher speeds and temporary increases in noise due to construction activities during project
execution. Increased traffic during construction may also have a slight impact on the air quality in
the region due to dust and increased diesel and gasoline consumption. CNRL’s established
transportation policy would help to minimize the effects of traffic on nearby residents.
Horizon Oil Sands is relatively isolated from other residents, which minimizes the project risks
to society. Numerous safeguards are in place to ensure that the 125% redesign case is properly risk
managed. Overall, implementation of the 125% redesign case would have a positive net social
benefit.
8. Option B: 112% Capacity Redesign

8.1. Process Description
The 112% capacity design increases the amount of CO2 recovered by modifying the existing
operating pressures and temperatures. The aMDEA flow rates are also adjusted to improve the
CO2 recovery rates. No new equipment is required for this redesign.
48
At increased syngas feed rates, the CO2 recovery efficiency decreases primarily due to limits
in the CO2 absorption rates in the CO2 Absorber (C-80). Desorption rates in the LP Flash Stripper
(C-82) also limit CO2 recovery efficiency but are secondary to the CO2 Absorber. Thus, minor
increases in capacity are achieved by optimizing CO2 absorption rates in the CO2 Absorber (C-80)
through temperature, pressure, and flow rate modifications. The changes in operating setpoints
needed to achieve 112% operating capacity are shown by stream in Table 16. In the 112% capacity
redesign, the amount of CO2 product produced is 1278 kmol/h, which is a 7.7% increase from the
base case CO2 output of 1187 kmol/h. A PFD of the 112% capacity redesign is shown in Figure 2
and in Appendix E with associated stream tables.
Table 16: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 112% Capacity Redesign
86 Lean Amine from Air Cooler Temperature 45.0 °C 41.5 °C
CO2 Absorption
The bottom operating pressure, aMDEA flow rate, and lean amine stream temperature for
the CO2 Absorber (C-80) are modified to improve CO2 absorption rates, as explained in Section
7.1.1. This maintains a CO2 concentration in the outlet syngas fed to the PSA at an acceptable level
below 3.00 mol%.
CO2 Desorption
Effective desorption of CO2 from the rich amine solution is achieved at 112% capacity
without modifications to the operating pressures of the LP Flash Stripper (C-82). The additional
49
process condensate recycled to the LP Flash Stripper is needed to effectively wash the exiting gas
to prevent entrainment of amine in the overheads.
Design Considerations
The increase in capacity of the CO2 Recovery Unit is limited to 112% due to the design
limits of the CO2 Absorber (C-80) and Lean Amine Air Cooler (E-84). The CO2 loading factor
used was 0.66 mol CO2/mol amine which was 1.3% higher than the recommended value of 0.65
mol CO2/mol amine. While this is unlikely to cause corrosion issues due to the lower operating
temperatures used, it should still be taken note of in the unit’s Corrosion Control Document.
8.2. Heat Integration

No equipment was added in the 112% redesign case so only limited heat integration could
be done. The existing integrated heat exchanger system was thus optimized as mentioned in
Section 7.2 by maximizing the area of the Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (E-81A/B).
8.3. Material and Energy Balances

The material and energy balances for the 112% case are summarized below in Table 17
and Table 18. Detailed balances are presented in Appendix G. The envelope used for all material
and energy balances is the box shown in Figure 1. The material and energy balances close with
negligible percent differences, indicating that both mass and energy were conserved.
50
Table 17: 112 % Case Overall Material Balance

(kmol/h) (kmol/h)
Amine Makeup Amine Makeup 0.0 -
IN

OUT
96 - 21.0
Water Header
Total (kmol/h) 9270.0 9270.0
51
Table 18: 112 % Case Overall Energy Balance

(kW) (kW)
Amine Makeup Amine Makeup 0 -
IN

OUT
96 - -1,659
Water Header
EQUIPMENT

Compressor Unit - 1850
Total (kW) -135,046 -135,035
8.4. Equipment List and Sizing

In the 112 % case, operating conditions were optimized, and no equipment modifications or
additions were made. The equipment required for this case is the existing equipment already on
site. Design and operating data for the equipment was provided by the client and can be found in
Appendix H.
52
8.5. Utility Requirements

Table 19 summarizes the additional utility requirements in order to facilitate the increase to
112% capacity. Detailed calculations done to determine these values are presented in Appendix J.
As described in the 125% redesign case, additional utility requirements included cooling water,
electricity, and makeup amine. The duty of the stripper reboiler also did not change from the base
case, resulting in no change in the LP steam requirement. The additional amine was estimated
using the same method described in Section 7.5.
Table 19: Additional Utility Requirements

Utility Makeup Amine Electricity Cooling Water
Comparison (kg/h) (kWh) (m3/h)
Base Case Usage 0.135 5483 566
125% Case Usage 0.141 6106 612
Increase from Base Case 0.006 623 46
8.6. Project Execution Strategy

The only project work required for this option is review of the modification of existing
operating procedures to accommodate the new setpoints. No construction or procurement work is
required due to the absence of equipment additions or modifications. A project execution strategy
was therefore not developed.
8.7. Economic Analysis

Economic Introduction
The methods and assumptions used for the economic analysis of the 112% redesign case are
the same as the ones used in the 125% redesign case and are outlined in Section 7.7.1. Unless
otherwise specified, all prices and costs are expressed in Canadian dollars.
53
Fixed Capital Expenditure
Since this option involves the optimization of existing operating conditions and does not
require the addition or modification of equipment, there is no fixed capital expenditure.
Operating Cost
Appendix J contains the calculations used to estimate the operating expenditure for the 112%
capacity redesign. Figure 12 presents the operating cost breakdown in the form of a pie chart. The
methods used to estimate operating cost are outlined in Section 7.7.4. Figure 12 shows that most
of the additional operating expenditure comes from the cooling water and electricity utility costs.
The total increase in annual operating expense was determined to be $0.67 MM.
Figure 12: Operating Cost Breakdown for the 112% Capacity Increase
The unit price data for the utilities provided by CNRL was used to determine the additional
utilities expenditure, as explained in Section 7.7.4. The results are shown in Table 20.
54
Table 20: Utility Cost Summary

Utility Unit Cost Additional Annual Expense
(x103 CAD)
Makeup Amine $12.25/kg $0.6
Electricity $0.11/kWh $556
Cooling Water $0.07/m3 $26
The sources of revenue for the 112% capacity redesign are the same as the ones listed in
Section 7.7.4 for the 125% capacity redesign. The increase in annual revenue determined for the
112% capacity redesign case was $1.86 MM.
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Figure 13 displays the cash flow diagram of the project for the 112% redesign case. Detailed
calculations and cash flow tables are presented in Appendix J. The method used for the cash flow
analysis is the same method described in 7.7.6.
$10
Cumulative Discounted Cash
$9
$8
$7
Flow ($MM)
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Project Year
Figure 13: Discounted Cash Flow Profile for the 112% Case
55
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis was conducted using the same method outlined in 7.7.6. Figure 14
illustrates the sensitivity analysis results with respect to NPV. Since a proper IRR could not be
obtained for the 112% case, a sensitivity analysis with respect to IRR was not performed. Figure
14 shows that the most influential parameters are the price of GHG emissions credits and sale price
of CO2. The market variation in the utility prices is shown to have little effect on the project NPV.
Figure 14: NPV Tornado Diagram for the 112% Case
Economic Conclusions
The lack of capital expenditure and relatively low operating cost for the 112% capacity
increase results in a positive NPV of $6.64 MM. Based on the NPV analysis, the 112% capacity
redesign is deemed to be economically feasible.
8.8. Environmental Analysis

The process waste streams, potential impacts, applicable environmental regulations, and
environmental management conclusions for the 112% capacity redesign are the same as the 125%
case. The environmental metrics used to evaluate the proposed solution were also the same but
56
with slightly different values. The 112% capacity redesign for the CO2 Removal Unit would
capture 34,925 tCO2e/yr more than the “do nothing” alternative, which is equivalent to removing
approximately 7,600 passenger vehicles from the road (43). Although the emissions reduction in
the 112% capacity redesign would be smaller than the 125% case, implementation of the project
would still contribute to CNRL’s environmental management goals. The cooling water use for the
CO2 Removal Unit would also increase by 0.013 m3/s. This increase in cooling water usage is
negligible in relation to the total cooling water supply used at Horizon Oil Sands facility. Thus, it
was assumed that the existing water treatment systems would be able to handle the marginal
increase without issue.
8.9. Safety and Risk Analysis

Hazard Identification and Risk Evaluation
A checklist PFD based analysis and What If? PHA was also completed for the 112% capacity
redesign case using similar methodology to the 125% case. No HAZOP was completed for the
112% capacity redesign due to a lack of time and resources for this project. However, the safety
and risk analysis for the 112% capacity redesign identified several recommendations, including
review of the existing PSVs and PRVs for potential re-ratings to accommodate the increased flow
rates, and confirmation of process lines sizing for the identified high velocity lines. Additionally,
the CO2 loading factor for the 112% capacity redesign is 0.66 mol CO2/mol amine, which is
slightly higher than the recommended maximum loading factor of 0.65 mol CO2/mol amine. This
should be evaluated for any potential impacts on equipment reliability or performance. The full
list recommendations identified for the 112% capacity redesign can be found in Appendix L.
57
Chemical Exposure Index

A Dow CEI was also calculated around stream 26 for the 112% design case. All relevant
calculations can be found in Appendix L. ERPG-1 is also not included in the analysis since it is
the same gas as the base and 125% design case. Table 21 shows the CEI and the hazard distances
for ERPG-2 and ERPG-3 for the 112% case compared to the base case. Figure 15 shows the
exposure radii to scale. As shown in the Figure 15, the radius of the 112% design case is similar
to the 125% design case. Thus, the risks identified as the same as those listed in 7.9.4 but on a
slightly smaller scale.
Table 21: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table

Cases Base Case 112% Design Case
Chemical Exposure Index 164.9 174.1
ERPG-2 (m) 1649 1741
ERPG-3 (m) 1382 1458
58
ERPG-2 (1741 m)
ERPG-3 (1458 m)
0 0.5 km 1.0 km 1.5 km 2.0 km
Figure 15: Chemical Exposure Radii by ERPG Level Overlaid on Satellite Imagery for the 112%
Case
Fire and Explosion Index

A Dow Fire and Explosion Index was also completed for the CO2 Absorber (C-80), Absorber
Overhead K.O. Drum (C-87), and the HP Lean Amine Flash Drum (C-81) for the 112% redesign
case. Table 22 shows the summary of the F&EI, exposure radius, capital loss, and business
interruptions for the three pieces of equipment in the 112% redesign case compared to the base
case. Detailed calculations for the F&EI can be found in Appendix L.
59
Table 22: Fire and Explosion Index Summary Table for the 112% Redesign Case
Base Case 112% Design Case
Equipment number C-80 C-81 C-87 C-80 C-81 C-87
Fire & Explosion Index 72.03 42.88 71.86 74.05 42.91 73.72
Radius of Exposure (m) 18.49 11.01 18.04 19.01 11.01 18.92
Maximum Probable Property Damage
0.99 0.69 1.40 1.01 0.69 1.42
($MM CAD)
Maximum Probable Days Outage 20 15 25 21 15 25
Business Interruption ($MM CAD) 0.41 0.31 0.52 0.47 0.34 0.56
Applicable Safety Regulations and Risk Management Conclusions

There are no additional safety regulations applicable to the 112% redesign case that were
not already identified for the 125% redesign case. After applying the assumed engineering
safeguards and administrative controls, all risks for the 112% case were determined to be at an
ALARP level.
8.10. Net Social Benefit Analysis

The net social benefit for the 112% redesign case was also evaluated based on factors
including contribution towards the local and regional economy, noise, traditional land and resource
use, and affect on human health. Increasing the capacity of the CO2 Removal Unit by 12% would
reduce the overall GHG emissions of the Horizon Oil Sands facility by 34,925 tCO2e/yr over the
“do nothing” case. This would also contribute to CNRL’s GHG emissions reduction strategy and
benefit other oil sands facilities in the Fort McMurray area, albeit to a lower magnitude than the
125% redesign. The Provincial tax revenue for the 125% capacity redesign was C$8.90 MM,
which was much higher than the 125% case due to there being no CCA applicable to this solution.
The 112% capacity design does not provide business opportunities for qualified local or
regional contractors due to the lack of construction activities. However, concerns regarding traffic,
60
dust, and noise around the facility during project implementation are consequently minimized.
Overall, the 112% redesign was determined to have a positive net social benefit.
9. Conclusions and Recommendations

Pre-emptive reductions in GHG emissions are crucial to minimizing long-term economic
risks resulting from rising carbon taxes costs. Okane Engineering was requested by CNRL to
redesign the existing CO2 Recovery Plant to increase the operating capacity by 15% and 25%. A
12% capacity increase was pursued instead of 15% after consultation with the client. The 12%
increase in capacity was achieved within the design limits of the existing equipment through
optimization of operating conditions. The 25% increase in capacity was achieved through the
addition of new equipment and modification and replacement of some existing equipment. The
design changes needed to achieve operating capacities of 112% and 125% in the CO2 Removal
Unit are summarized in Table 23.
Table 23: Summary of Requirements for Redesign

112% 125%
Change in Specified Parameters Base Case
Case Case
Flow Rate of Steam Codensate to CO2 Absorber
122 122 130
(kmol/h)
Flow Rate of aMDEA (kmol/h) 2018 2106 2211
Temperature of Lean Amine Fed to CO2 Absorber (K) 318.15 314.65 307.85
CO2 Absorber Operating Pressure (bottom/top) (kPag) 3285/3275 3300/3275 3315/3275
CO2 Absorber Packing Type IMTP #40 IMTP #40 IMTP #25
CO2 Absorber Packing Height (m) 8.6 8.6 10.2
LP Flash Stripper Operating Pressure (bottom/top)
50/40 50/40 55/40
(kPag)
LP Flash Stripper Packing Type IMTP #50 IMTP #50 IMTP #40
Process Condensate Recycle to LP Flash Stripper
142 148 116
(kmol/h)
Number of Exchangers to be Added or Replaced 0 0 3
Number of Drums to be Replaced 0 0 2
61
Preliminary economic analyses of the 112% and 125% redesign cases were completed to
assess economic feasibility. The 125% redesign case was found to be economically unfeasible,
with an NPV of -C$10.69 MM. It was calculated that a selling price of C$49 /tCO2 would be
required for the 125% redesign case to be financially viable at the current carbon tax of C$30
/tCO2e. The 112% redesign case was found to be economically feasible with an NPV of C$6.64
MM. The additional operating costs were found to be C$0.67 MM per year with an annual revenue
of C$1.86 MM.
An environmental assessment was performed for the proposed project. It was found that both
the 112% and 125% redesign cases would meet or exceed all applicable environmental regulations.
The 112% and 125% capacity redesigns would recover approximately 35,000 and 95,000 tCO2e/yr
more than the current process, respectively. Both redesigns would also contribute to CNRL’s goal
of reducing emissions intensity to below the global crude average and strengthen the company’s
position as an industry leader in responsible GHG management.
The completion of multiple hazard identifications and risk assessment methodologies, such
as a process hazard checklist, What If? analysis, HAZOP, and DOW indices were used to identify
safeguards to minimize project risks to an ALARP level. Overall, both redesigns would have an
overall positive net social benefit and be environmentally and socially sustainable.
Based on the design evaluations conducted, Okane Engineering advises CNRL to not pursue
the 125% redesign case which was determined to be economically unfeasible. The 112% design
case is economically feasible and should be pursued further. Further evaluation of potential
corrosion issues, piping velocity limitations, and effects of high CO2 loading is still required. It is
also strongly recommended to complete field testing to verify the CO2 recovery efficiencies stated
in the 112% capacity redesign. Upon completion of these recommendations, project execution of
62
the 112% redesign case would be the best course of action, as it would increase the profitability of
CNRL and provide significant environmental and economic benefits.
63
10. References
1. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. The Horizon Oil Sands. Canadian Natural. [Online]
[Cited: January 1, 2019.]
https://cnrl.hgcareers.com/en/media/cnrl/The%20Oil%20Sands%20Process.pdf.
2. —. Managing Tailings. [Online] [Cited: January 20, 2019.] https://www.cnrl.com/corporate-
responsibility/advancements-in-technology/managing-tailings.html.
3. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth
and Climate Change. [Online] 2016.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/environment/documents/weather1/20170125-
en.pdf.
4. Government of Alberta. Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation Fact Sheet. [Online]
April 2018. [Cited: January 20, 2019.] https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/cci-fact-
sheet.pdf.
5. —. Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation. [Online] November 20, 2018. [Cited:
January 20, 2019.]
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=2017_255.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780779
800193.
6. —. Output Based Allocation Engagement. [Online] [Cited: January 25, 2019.]
https://www.alberta.ca/output-based-allocation-engagement.aspx.
7. Alberta Environment and Parks. Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund Credit
Amount Order. [Online] December 21, 2017. [Cited: January 25, 2019.]
https://www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/CCEMA-fund-credit-ministerial-order.PDF.
8. Canada's Oil Sands. GHG Emissions. [Online] https://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/explore-
topics/ghg-emissions.
9. Government of Alberta. Climate Leadership Plan - Implementation Plan 2018-19. Open
Government Portal. [Online] June 2018. [Cited: January 17, 2019.]
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/da6433da-69b7-4d15-9123-01f76004f574/resource/b42b1f43-
7b9d-483d-aa2a-6f9b4290d81e/download/clp_implementation_plan-jun07.pdf.
10. —. Oil Sands Emissions Limit Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] December 14, 2016.
[Cited: April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/O07p5.pdf.
11. Barry Sacifrage. Oilsands pollution on collision course with Canada's climate plan.
Canada's National Observer. [Online] February 20, 2018. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/20/opinion/oilsands-pollution-collision-course-
canadas-climate-plan.
12. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Corporate Statement on Environmental Management.
[Online] June 2018. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
http://webadmin.cnrl.com/upload/media_element/445/07/2018-corporate-statement-on-
environmental-management_final.pdf.
64
13. —. 2017 Stewardship Report to Stakeholders. [Online] 2017.

http://webadmin.cnrl.com/upload/multi_media_element/185/04/2017-stewardship-report-to-
stakeholders.pdf.
14. Global carbon intensity of crude oil production. Masnadi, Mohammad S., et al. 6405, s.l. :
Science Magazine, 2018, Vol. 361.
15. Statistics Canada. Energy Statistics Handbook - Appendix A: Conversion Factors. Statistics
Canada. [Online] July 29, 2005. [Cited: April 8, 2019.]
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/57-601-x/00105/4173282-eng.htm.
16. Melnyk, Kevin. Vice President Upgrading and Utilities. Industrial Advisor Meeting #3.
Edmonton, April 2, 2019.
17. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GHG emissions reduction program. [Online] [Cited:
April 4, 2019.] https://www.cnrl.com/corporate-responsibility/environment/climate-
change/ghg-emissions.
18. Global CCS Institute. Accelerating the Uptake of CCS: Industrial Use of Captured Carbon
Dioxide. 2011.
19. Heal, Kevin and Kemp, Terry. North West Sturgeon Refinery Project Overview - Carbon
Capture Through Innovative Commercial Structuring in the Canadian Oil Sands. Calgary :
s.n., 2013.
20. Gas-Liquid Equilibrium in a CO2-MDEA-H2O System and the Effect of Piperazine on It.
Xu, Guo-Wen, et al. 4, Shanghai : Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1998, Vol.
37, pp. 1473-1477.
21. Engineering Data Book. Gas Processors Suppliers Association. Tulsa : s.n., 2004, Vol. 1
and 2.
22. Perry, Robert H and Green, Don W. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 8th. New
York : McGraw-Hill, 2007. 978-0071422949.
23. Tan, L.S., et al. Factors affecting CO2 absorption efﬁciency in packed column: A review.
Tronoh : Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 2012.
24. Scale-Up Effects of CO2 Capture by Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) Solutions in Terms of
Loading Capacity. Santos, Samuel P, Gomes, João F and Bordado, João C. 19, s.l. :
MDPI, 2016, Vol. 4.
25. American Petroleum Institute. Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine Units.
[Document] 2008. API RP945.
26. —. Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry. [Document]
2011. API RP 571.
27. Corrosion and Materials Selection for Amine Service. Rennie, S. s.l. : Materials Forum,
2006, Vol. 30.
28. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Integrated Application and Environmental Impact
Assessment. s.l. : Environment and Parks, 2018.
65
29. Guthrie, Kenneth M. Process Plant Estimating Evaluation and Control. Solana Beach :
Craftsman Book Company of America, 1974.
30. International, AACE. Cost Estimate Classification System - As Applied in Engineering,
Procurements, and Construction for the Process Industries. AACE International
Recommended Practice No. 18R-97. s.l. : AACE® International, March 1, 2016.
31. Narayanasarma, Prabhu. P. Eng. Industry Advisor Meeting #1. Edmonton, January 31,
2019.
32. Ulrich, Gael D. and Vasudevan, Palligarnai T. Chemical Engineering Process Design and
Economics: A Practical Guide (Second Edition). Durham : Process (Ulrich) Publishing,
2004. 0-97087683-2-3.
33. Jamieson & Church. Contingency Estimating. Edmonton, AB, Canada : s.n., 2015.
34. Live Exchange Rates. OANDA Corporation. [Online] https://www.oanda.com/currency/live-
exchange-rates/USDCAD/.
35. Chemical Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering Essentials for the CPI Professional.
[Online] https://www.chemengonline.com/2019-cepci-updates-january-prelim-and-
december-2018-final/.
36. Jamieson & Church. Adjusting FBM. Edmonton, AB, Canada : s.n., 2015.
37. Common CCA Classes and Rates. Donnelly & Co. LLP. [Online]
http://donnellyco.ab.ca/cca-rates-and-classes.
38. Government of Alberta. Specified Gas Reporting Regulation. Alberta Queen's Printer.
[Online] November 20, 2018. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=2017_255.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780779
800193.
39. —. Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online]
January 1, 2017. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/C16P7.pdf.
40. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Protecting Air Qualtiy. [Online] [Cited: April 5, 2019.]
https://www.cnrl.com/corporate-responsibility/environment/climate-change/air-quality.
41. Woof Buffalo Environmental Association. Horizon. Wood Buffalo Environmental
Association. [Online] March 6, 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://wbea.org/stations/horizon/.
42. Government of Alberta. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary.
Open Government Portal. [Online] January 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/0d2ad470-117e-410f-ba4f-aa352cb02d4d/resource/4ddd8097-
6787-43f3-bb4a-908e20f5e8f1/download/aaqo-summary-jan2019.pdf.
43. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical
Passenger Vehicle. [Online] March 2018. [Cited: April 6, 2019.]
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle.
66
44. Province of Alberta. Climate Leadership Regulation. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online]
November 20, 2018. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2016_175.pdf.
45. Government of Alberta. Climate Leadership Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] June 7,
2017. [Cited: April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/C16P9.pdf.
46. Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Environment and Parks. Authorization Viewer. [Online]
August 5, 2015. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://avw.alberta.ca/ApprovalViewerResults.aspx?Click=Search&exapv_id=186921.
47. APEGA. Guideline for Management of Risk in Professional Practice. [Online] September
2006. [Cited: January 20, 2019.] https://www.apega.ca/assets/PDFs/risk.pdf.
48. Government of Alberta. Safety Codes Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] December 1,
2017. [Cited: April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/S01.pdf.
49. —. Electrical codes and standards. [Online] 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://www.alberta.ca/electrical-codes-and-standards.aspx.
50. —. Fire codes and standards - Overview. [Online] May 1, 2015. [Cited: April 5, 2019.]
https://www.alberta.ca/fire-codes-and-standards-overview.aspx.
51. —. Plumbing codes and standards - Overview. [Online] 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
https://www.alberta.ca/plumbing-codes-and-standards-overview.aspx.
52. —. Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] 2015. [Cited:
April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_049.pdf.
53. —. Occupational Health and Safety Act. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] June 11, 2018.
[Cited: April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/O02P1.pdf.
54. —. Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. Alberta Queen's Printer. [Online] 2018.
[Cited: April 4, 2019.] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2003_062.pdf.
55. —. Occupational Health and Safety Code 2018 Explanation Guide. Alberta Queen's Printer.
[Online] January 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.]
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/OHS/OHSCodeExplanationGuide.pdf.
56. Government of Canada. Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. Justice
Laws Website. [Online] March 26, 2019. [Cited: April 4, 2019.] https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-87-612/index.html.
57. —. Canada Labour Code. Justice Laws Website. [Online] March 12, 2019. [Cited: April 5,
2019.] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/.
58. IGI Global. What is Net Social Benefit. IGI Global - Disseminator of Knowledge. [Online]
[Cited: April 7, 2019.] https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/net-social-benefit/62132.
67
Appendix A: Decision Analysis

Description
The purpose of this appendix is to show solution options considered and outline the
decision analysis procedure undertaken to evaluate them. The project musts and wants are defined.
Options are then assessed on their ability to meet the musts and rated on their ability to meet the
wants.
Table of Contents
1. Options Considered ............................................................................................................... A-1
1.1. Option A: Do Nothing ................................................................................................... A-1
1.2. Option B: Optimization of Operating Conditions with Existing Equipment ................ A-1
1.2.1. The Effects of Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate on CO2 Recovery............... A-2
1.3. Option C: Modification of Absorber and Stripper Column .......................................... A-3
1.4. Option D: Replacement of Plant with Gasification System .......................................... A-3
2. Decision Analysis Criteria .................................................................................................... A-5
3. Evaluation of Options ........................................................................................................... A-6
List of References ....................................................................................................................... A-7
i
1. Options Considered
1.1. Option A: Do Nothing
In the “Do Nothing” option, no equipment or operational changes would be made to the
CO2 Removal Unit, maintaining the plant’s current capacity and recovery. The operating
expenditure would increase due to higher energy inputs as a result of increased syngas feed
rates, but no capital expenditure would be required. Since the CO2 recovery would remain the
same, more CO2 would be released to atmosphere resulting in increased carbon tax costs. The
advantages of this option are that CNRL would save time, effort, and capital costs, as no
additional work is required due to the absence of redesign. The disadvantage is that doing
nothing would progressively cost CNRL more in the long-term due to higher carbon taxes,
particularly if carbon pricing increases in accordance with the federal climate plan.
1.2. Option B: Optimization of Operating Conditions with Existing Equipment

This option increases the capacity of the CO2 Removal Unit by optimizing the operating
conditions within the confines of the existing infrastructure, forcing the existing equipment to
operate at maximum capacity. This option modifies the operating temperatures, pressures, and
flowrates to support the increased feed flow rate and increase recovery of CO2 while balancing
energy input and utilities usage. The advantages of this option are that it reduces carbon tax
costs through reductions in GHG emissions and has a low capital expenditure, as the process
equipment is utilized as is. The disadvantage is that the existing design limits of equipment
would hinder the achievable increase in capacity and CO2 recovery. Unless the CO2 Removal
Unit was originally overdesigned, it is likely that the plant’s capacity will be limited by the
equipment’s original design before reaching 125%. A significant increase in the CO2 recovery
percentage is also unlikely, thus a higher feed rate would result in higher carbon tax costs.
A-1
Changing operating conditions would require increased energy input and utilities usage adding
to operating costs as well. Determining the capacity and recovery limits of this option requires
further investigation.
1.2.1. The Effects of Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate on CO2 Recovery
Increasing operating temperature in an absorption column typically increases the rate of
mass transfer based on reaction kinetics; however, CO2 absorption is an exothermic process
(1). Too high of a temperature could hinder the absorption process due to shifts in the reaction
equilibrium, so the maximization of CO2 absorption requires optimization of reaction
temperatures (1). Column temperatures can be manipulated by changing the duty of reboilers
or associated heat exchangers; however, more energy input is required and would result in a
higher operating expenditure.
When the partial pressure of CO2 is increased, an increase in CO2 absorption efficiency
of the column is observed. The high interfacial tension resulting from the increased partial
pressure causes an interfacial disturbance that improves mass transfer rate (1). Reducing the
overall system pressure or increasing the CO2 concentration of the inlet streams can increase
the partial pressure of CO2 in both the CO2 Absorber and Low Pressure (LP) Flash Stripper.
Assuming the composition of the syngas fed to the CO2 Absorber is fixed, reducing the
pressure of the column is more reasonable. However, decreasing the pressure will also
decrease the temperature which can negatively impact mass transfer (1).
The flow rate of absorbent used also influences the extent of mass transfer achieved.
Increasing flow rate increases the amount of packing surface covered with absorbent, which
consequently increases the effective area for mass transfer (1). For the CO2 Removal Unit, an
A-2
increase in flow rate of lean MDEA would thus increase the amount of CO2 absorbed. This
would also require a higher rate of regeneration of lean MDEA from rich MDEA, leading to
a higher operating cost due to increased utilities usage and potential capital expenditure costs
for additional equipment to increase amine regeneration capacity.
1.3. Option C: Modification of Absorber and Stripper Column

If the existing infrastructure cannot achieve the desired increase in plant capacity,
equipment modifications will be made to the CO2 Absorber, LP Flash Stripper, or both. The
key processes of the CO2 Removal Unit are CO2 absorption by lean MDEA and desorption of
CO2 from rich MDEA, which occurs in the CO2 Absorber and LP Flash Stripper respectively.
Increasing the capacity of either one would increase the plant’s capacity. These two processes
also largely control the CO2 recovery efficiency; therefore, improving efficiency in one or both
columns would increase CO2 recovery. This would be advantageous in avoiding increases in
carbon tax costs due to the additional CO2 introduced by higher feed flow rates. This option
offers the advantage of design flexibility, ensuring that the equipment is designed to achieve
the desired 115% and 125% capacity and product specifications as requested. The disadvantage
is that this option is capital expenditure intensive. The cost for modification or replacement of
columns is significantly higher than that of smaller equipment like exchangers. The higher
capacity columns will have increased energy input requirements, raising operating costs as
well.
1.4. Option D: Replacement of Plant with Gasification System

This option involves implementing a hydrogen-producing gasification system, which the
North West Sturgeon Refinery (NWSR) currently utilizes, in place of the existing CO 2
A-3
Recovery Plant. This system can produce a high purity CO2 product stream with higher feed
flow rates without the need for excess dehydration units (2). Lurgi’s Multi-Purpose Gasifier
(MPG®) with Rectisol® synthesis gas processing and conditioning technology is used at
NWSR. Rectisol® is a mature acid gas separation technology that has commercially
demonstrated the ability to safely and reliably process a variety of raw materials, from natural
gas to coal (3). This technology would produce hydrogen and CO2 using the following:
1. MPG® gasifier reactors that react feedstock with O2 in the presence of steam under high
pressure and temperature conditions
2. A quenching unit that cools superheated raw syngas via direct injection of water
3. A gas scrubber and ash recovery unit that removes ash and soot
4. A raw gas CO-shift conversion unit
5. A Rectisol® syngas processing unit that conditions and purifies H2, CO2, and H2S
The advantage of this option is that it can easily produce the specified 92 mol% purity of the
CO2 product stream for operations at 115% and 125% capacity with potential reductions in
energy input and utility usage due to less intensive product purification processes. The capital
expenditure required is a major disadvantage, as implementation of this new technology
involves replacement of the CO2 Recovery Plant in its entirety along with major
reconfiguration of upstream and downstream tie-ins.
A-4
2. Decision Analysis Criteria

Musts Description
As an Alberta-based facility regulated under the CCIR, the Horizon Oil Sands
Demonstrate
are subject to compliance costs for every tonne of GHGs emitted above the
the ability to
allocated limit. The cost to offset these emissions by purchasing carbon offset or
reduce
CCEMF credits is currently $30/tCO2e and may rise to as high as $50/tCO2e in
emissions to
2022. Since SMR capacity augmentation would contribute to increased emission
better
from the Horizon Oils Sands facility, the options explored in this analysis must
comply with
demonstrate the ability to reduce emissions and maintain profitability for the
regulations
Horizon Oil Sands.
Increase The primary objective of the project is to identify suitable equipment or
plant operational changes necessary to facilitate the increased capacity of the syngas
capacity by feed stream. An incremental increase in capacity smaller than 15% is not a large
at least 15% enough change to have an impact and would not meet the project objectives.
Wants Description Weight
Minimize Equipment additions or modifications are likely to be expensive. 30%
capital cost The solution should limit the amount of complex alterations made
to the process design, since the economic significance for this
project lies with innovative solutions to achieve the project musts
through minimum capital investment.
Maximize This project aims to maximize the amount of CO2 emissions being 30%
reduction of recovered to minimize the operating costs associated with carbon
GHG tax and CCIR compliance costs.
emissions
Minimize The proposed redesign should minimize required utilities input, 25%
operating such as steam and power input, as these resources increase
costs operating costs which can affect economic profitability.
Minimize The proposed redesign should also aim to minimize the time 15%
construction required for installation of additional equipment or tear down of
time existing equipment for the capacity augmentation.
Rating Description
0 Alternative will not meet criteria
2 Poor chance of meeting criteria
4 Fair chance of meeting criteria
6 Acceptable/average chance of meeting criteria
8 Very good chance of meeting criteria
10 Excellent chance of meeting or exceeding criteria
A-5
3. Evaluation of Options
Musts Option A Option B Option C Option D
Reduce emissions to better comply with ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓
regulations
Increase plant capacity by at least 15% ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓
Go / No Go No Go Go Go Go
Weight Option B Option C Option D
Wants
(%) (/10) (/10) (/10)
Minimize capital costs 30 10 2 0
Maximize reduction of GHG emissions 30 6 8 10
Minimize operating costs 25 6 6 4
Minimize construction time 15 10 6 2
Total (/10) 100 7.8 5.4 4.3
Note that the investigation of Option B resulted in optimization of operating conditions that could
support a 12% capacity increase rather than the 15% initially proposed. Upon consultation with
the client, a 112% capacity redesign was deemed to be acceptable in place of the 15% capacity
redesign, provided that the 112% capacity redesign was completed using only existing equipment.
This change modifies the required must for the design to be able to “increase plant capacity by at
least 12%”.
A-6
List of References
2. Heal, Kevin and Kemp, Terry. North West Sturgeon Refinery Project Overview - Carbon
Capture Through Innovative Commercial Structuring in the Canadian Oil Sands. Calgary : s.n.,
2013.
3. Rectisol Wash Units: Acid Gas Removal for Polygeneration Concepts downstream Gasification.
Haberle, Thomas and Kerestecioglu, Ulvi. Washington DC : s.n., 2010.
A-7
Appendix B: Simulation Assumptions

Description
This appendix contains supporting information and justification regarding assumptions
made when simulating the project in BRE ProMax. Three separate modelling files were
constructed for the base case, 115 % capacity increase, and 125 % capacity increase.
Table of Contents
1. Thermodynamic Model Selection ........................................................................................... B-1
2. Amine Solution Modelling ..................................................................................................... B-2
3. Adiabatic ................................................................................................................................. B-2
4. Isobaric .................................................................................................................................... B-3
5. Equipment Efficiencies ........................................................................................................... B-3
6. Tray Weir Height .................................................................................................................... B-4
7. Use of Make-Up and Recycle Blocks ..................................................................................... B-4
8. Fictitious Heat Exchanger ....................................................................................................... B-5
9. Feed Stream Compositions ..................................................................................................... B-6
10. Utility Stream Compositions................................................................................................. B-7
List of References ....................................................................................................................... B-8
i
1. Thermodynamic Model Selection

Decision: The Amine Sweetening Electrolytic ELR property package will be used to simulate the
CO2 Recovery Plant. The CO2 Absorber will be modelled using the TSWEET Kinetics model
while the LP Flash Stripper will be modelled using the TSWEET Alternate Stripper.
Justification: Based on the ProMax help section written by Bryan Research & Engineering (BRE),
the property package recommended for amine sweetening processes is Amine Sweetening
Electrolytic ELR. This property package was also found to be relatively accurate in modelling CO2
capturing processes by Ahmadi (1). Using the Amine Sweetening Electrolytic ELR property
package, the modelled syngas feed stream entering the CO2 Absorber has a Cp value of 2992
J/kg/K, while the given material balance for the design basis lists a value of 3003 J/kg/K. Since
the modelled value only differs by 0.4% from the benchmark for design, the property package is
deemed suitable for simulating the process. The TSWEET Kinetics Model using Ideal Stages
modified by thermal efficiencies is used to model the CO2 Absorber, while the TSWEET
Absorber/Stripper Model is used to model the LP Flash Stripper. The TSWEET Kinetics Model is
used for the CO2 Absorber because it is able to model the absorption of CO2 more accurately than
the TSWEET Absorber/Stripper Model when compared to the design basis compositions. BRE
also recommends the TSWEET Kinetics model with Ideal Stages for amine absorbers and
TSWEET Alternate Stripper with Mass and Heat Transfer for amine regenerators. The simulation
results using the separation models were compared to the design basis for validation and compared
to calculations performed using fundamental separation theories, as shown in Appendix B.
B-1
2. Amine Solution Modelling

Decision: The aMDEA compound will be modelled as 3 wt% piperazine and 97 wt% MDEA.
Justification: Greater activator composition in the solution results in improved absorption but
increases the risk of corrosion. It is common for industries to use approximately 3 wt% piperazine
to assist in the extraction of CO2. At a 3 wt% piperazine concentration at the given amine solution
flow rates, 87.5% of the CO2 in the inlet Syngas stream can be recovered from the rich amine
stream in the CO2 Absorber. This is consistent with the material balance provided for the process,
verifying this assumption. This assumption was also reviewed and accepted by the Industry
Advisor. Thus, the aMDEA flow rates are modelled as 3 wt% piperazine and 97% MDEA in the
ProMax simulation model.
3. Adiabatic
Decision: The process will be simulated as being adiabatic; ignoring heat losses to the
environment.
Justification: Accurate consideration of heat losses in a system is difficult to achieve and requires
rigorous calculations with considerations of many factors, such as insultation thicknesses and heat
tracing. Due to the limitations of the information provided regarding the existing equipment and
piping designs, the process will be assumed to be adiabatic. The project is also a preliminary
assessment, qualifying as a Class 4 economic estimate by the Association for the Advancement of
Cost Estimating (AACE) standards. Thus, in order to complete the study of the proposed solutions
to the accuracy required for this project, the process is assumed to be adiabatic.
B-2
4. Isobaric
Decision: The differences in the inlet and outlet stream pressures compared to the given operating
pressures for equipment will be considered negligible where pressure drops are not specified.
Justification: The material balance for the design basis of the CO2 Recovery Plant was provided
as well as operating data for select pieces of equipment. In cases where a pressure drop is indicated
by inlet and outlet streams conditions, as listed in the design basis or operating data provided, the
stated pressure drop is accounted for and used in the simulation. Otherwise, if the operating
pressure, inlet pressure, and outlet pressures are shown to be equal across a piece of equipment,
the pressure drop is assumed to be negligible and specified as 0 kPa(g) in the simulation.
Realistically, pressure drop cannot be eliminated across any type of equipment. However, for the
purpose of reflecting what was given in the design basis, this was applied to the process.
5. Equipment Efficiencies
Decision: Pump efficiencies in the simulation will be calculated as 90% of the stated hydraulic
efficiencies. Compressors will be simulated using an efficiency of 80%.
Justification: For centrifugal pumps, a typical efficiency range is 50 to 85% (Ulrich &
Vasudevan). Operating data was provided for existing pumps in the process, but only hydraulic
efficiency was provided. ProMax requires an overall efficiency, which is a function of the pump’s
volumetric and hydraulic efficiency. As a conservative estimate, the overall efficiency is assumed
to be 90% of the hydraulic efficiencies stated in the operating data summary provided by the
Industry Advisor. Regarding compressors, Ulrich & Vasudevan list the typical efficiencies of
centrifugal compressors operating in a staged configuration to be between 75 to 85% (2). The
midpoint of this range is taken as the assumed compressor efficiency of 80%.
B-3
6. Tray Weir Height

Decision: The tray weir heights will be assumed to be 2 in.
Justification: Weir height of the existing trays in the absorber and stripper were not provided. A
typical weir height of 2 inches is then assumed to allow for convergence in each of the columns.
7. Use of Make-Up and Recycle Blocks

Decision: Make-up blocks and recycle blocks will be added to the simulation to account for the
CO2 Removal Unit’s existing make-up streams and equipment, which are not simulated in detail.
The make-up block will be used in the rich amine stream going to the LP Flash Stripper to close
the amine cycle. The recycle block will be used in the lean amine stream going to the CO 2
Absorber. A make-up block will also be used to account for discrepancies in the water balance.
Justification: Make-up blocks are required to supplement lost components in closed loops and
ensure that the material balances close. The make-up units in ProMax solve based on inlet and
make-up stream compositions and a desired outlet flow rate. In the existing plant, the make-up
stream enters the lean amine feed stream to the CO2 Absorber. Due to the interdependence of the
CO2 Absorber and LP Flash Stripper when modelling CO2 recovery, a recycle block is used in this
location instead. The recycle block allows for composition guesses to be made to begin iteration
of the simulation and are needed when simulating a closed loop. To model the CO2 absorption and
desorption as a single process block, the make-up block is used in the rich amine stream instead.
Likewise, a recycle block is used in order to solve the LP Flash Stripper water recycle loop. A
make-up block for water is then used in the lean amine stream to account for water loss in the LP
Flash Stripper which results due to error in the property package when simulating the separation
of CO2 and water.
B-4
8. Fictitious Heat Exchanger

Decision: A pseudo-heat exchanger will be added in the semilean amine pumparound stream from
the LP Flash Stripper to account for static head pressure in the pumparound stream. Another
fictitious exchanger will be added in the overhead stream upstream of the CO2 Absorber Overhead
Cooler (E-80) to compensate for error in the simulation of the CO2 absorption process in the CO2
Absorber (C-80).
Justification: The pumparound piping off the LP Flash Stripper is vertical. This piping
configuration ensures that only the liquid portion of the pumparound draw is drawn into the
Semilean Amine Pump (G-81A/B). The phase separation and added static head of the liquid level
prevents vapor locking of the pump. Since, ProMax does not account for piping configuration, a
fictitious exchanger is added in the pumparound stream to model the pumparound stream as being
pure liquid. This allows the Semilean Amine Pump to solve, allowing the simulation model to
converge. In modelling the absorption of CO2 in the CO2 Absorber (C-80), the property package
used resulted in much higher heat generation from the absorption process than was identified in
the design basis. In order to compensate for this error, a fictitious exchanger was added in the
overhead stream to remove some duty. This allowed for the inlet stream temperature to the CO2
Absorber Overhead Cooler to be consistent with the design basis. This fixed amount of duty was
then carried over to the 112% and 125% design basis as a conservative estimate for the minimum
amount of error heat generated when modelling CO2 absorption.
B-5
9. Feed Stream Compositions

Decision: The molar composition of the feed stream will remain constant with flow rate.
Justification: Based on discussions with the Industry Advisor, the composition of the syngas did
not vary significantly at increased flow rates. The molar compositions were thus taken to be
consistent and are listed below:
Stream Units Syngas to CO2 Absorber Lean MDEA

Phase Vapor
Mass Flow kg/hr ~ 584000
Volumetric Flow Nm3/h 185000
Molar Flow kmol/h ~ 8220 21400
Temperature °C 40 45
Pressure kPa[g] 3325 4100
CO mol % 3.3
CO2 mol % 16.6 0.2
H2 mol % 75.6
H2O mol % 2 90.4
CH4 mol % 4.2
C2H6 mol % 0
C3H8 mol % 0
N-C4H10 mol % 0
N-C5H12 mol % 0
N2 mol % 0.1
O2 mol % 0
AR mol % 0
MDEA with activator mol % 0 9.4
B-6
10. Utility Stream Compositions

Decision: The utility stream conditions will be taken from the operating data. However, when
operating data is not available, the conditions will be based on the typical utility conditions.
Justification: Due to confidentiality restrictions, not all operating data could be made available.
As a result, the following table of typical conditions for utilities was provided by the Industry
Advisor to use for assumed operating conditions where other data was available:
Utility Stream Typical Conditions

HP Steam 4300 kPa(g) 370°C
MP Steam 1300 kPa(g) 220°C
LP Steam 400 kPa(g) 150°C
Boiler Feed Water 6150 kPa(g) 128°C
Cooling Water Supply 100 kPa(g) 24°C
Cooling Water Return 930 kPa(g) 38°C
Fuel Gas 600 kPa(g) 40°C
Natural Gas 600 kPa(g) 40°C
B-7
List of References
1. Ahmadi, F. Assessing the Performance of Aspen Plus and Promax for the Simulation of CO2
Capture Plants. Regina : University of Regina, 2012.
Economics: A Practical Guide (Second Edition). Durham : Process (Ulrich) Publishing, 2004. 0-
97087683-2-3.
B-8
Appendix C: Simulation Validation

Description
The purpose of this appendix is to show calculations for the process and compare these
values to the outputs from the simulation. This will determine whether the output of the simulation
is within range of what is expected from the design basis and provided operating conditions,
verifying whether the simulation output can be trusted.
Table of Contents
1. Stream Properties .................................................................................................................. C-1
1.1. Specific Heat Capacity .................................................................................................. C-1
1.2. Density........................................................................................................................... C-2
1.3. Viscosity ........................................................................................................................ C-2
2. Heat Exchanger Selection ..................................................................................................... C-2
3. CO2 Absorber Separation ...................................................................................................... C-5
4. Compression Stage................................................................................................................ C-8
List of References ..................................................................................................................... C-10
i
1. Stream Properties
1.1. Specific Heat Capacity
The selection of property package is detrimental to the accuracy of the simulation. The
specific heat capacity from the simulation is compared to the values given in the design basis,
as laid out below in kJ/kg/K, to confirm the validity of the simulation. All simulation streams
agree within 5% of the specific heat capacity values given in the design basis.
Stream Design Basis Simulation (Base Case) Difference

Number (J/kg/K) (J/kg/K) (%)
25 3003 2992 0%
26 6175 6187 0%
27 6218 6191 0%
28 6209 6214 0%
35 1000 978 2%
36 1359 1288 5%
37 906 904 0%
38 1164 1112 4%
72 4301 4170 3%
73 3672 3578 3%
74 3671 3581 2%
75 1413 1377 3%
77 3637 3554 2%
78 3745 3714 1%
81 3745 3714 1%
82 3831 3834 0%
83 4138 4224 2%
84 3960 4087 3%
85 3960 4081 3%
86 3737 3879 4%
87 4186 4174 0%
93 4209 4175 1%
94 4209 4174 1%
95 4209 4176 1%
96 4209 4175 1%
C-1
1.2. Density
Streams that were simulated by specifying molar flow rates were also assessed for
agreement with the design basis. The density of these streams in kg/m3 are tabulated below.
Agreement within 8% was obtained for density.

Number (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%)
25 14 14 1%
72 920 990 8%
86 1026 1029 0%
95 990 990 0%
1.3. Viscosity
Viscosity of the specified streams in the simulation were also examined. Values from the
design basis and the simulation agreed within 12%. Although the percent difference appears to be
high, the discrepancy is attributed to differences in stream molecular weights due to property
package selection.

Number (mPa*s) (mPa*s) (%)
25 0.000014 0.000014 3%
86 0.002808 0.002463 12%
95 0.000619 0.000615 1%
2. Heat Exchanger Selection

The CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler, E-80, is designated as a BEM type exchanger under
the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) designations. In other words, this heat
exchanger is a shell and tube heat exchanger with a bonnet stationary head, one-pass shell, and
C-2
fixed tube sheet. It was assumed that there are two tube passes. From U&V (1) (Table 4.12, Pg
194) this type of heat exchanger has a maximum surface area per unit of 800 m2, a maximum
operating pressure of 200 bara on the shell side and 140 bara on the tube side, a maximum
operating temperature of 150 °C, and a minimum practical approach temperature of 5 °C. From
operating data provided, the actual heat exchanger surface area is 85.8 m2, the operating pressure
is 33.8 bara on the shell side and 6.0 bara on the tube side, the operating temperature is 45 °C, and
the approach temperature is 16 °C. Therefore, heat exchanger type selection is valid for this
service. The remaining heat exchangers were also deemed valid for their respective services.
To validate the simulation used to model the CO2 Removal Unit, the following assumptions
were made:
• Heat losses are negligible
• Overall heat transfer coefficient is constant
• Specific heat of each fluid is constant
The overall heat transfer coefficients (U) were calculated from the design basis by
simulating each heat exchanger on ProMax and applied to the base case simulation to calculate
heat exchange areas. Comparison of heat exchange areas from the simulation and the actual areas
from the operating data provided by the client showed good agreement. Since phase change in the
condensers were minimal, a constant U value was assumed. A mean temperature difference was
used for the reboiler instead of a log mean temperature difference. Note that the average reference
U values were used when it could not be calculated as in E-82 and E-84. The duty of E-84 given
was simulated and the resulting fan power required was used as benchmark for further redesign.
C-3
Tag Description Reference Calculated Actual Calculated

U U Area Area (m2)
(W/m2/K) (W/m2/K) (m2)
E-80 CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler 454-709 489 85.8 88.8
E-81A/B Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger 794-1134 1532 595.0 596.0
E-82 Stripper Reboiler 794-1134 1150.0 301.0
E-83 Stripper Overhead Condenser 1418-2837 267 381.7 376.0
E-84 Lean Amine Air Cooler 680-794
The reference heat transfer coefficients were obtained with the following considerations:
1. Stripper OH Condenser
Shell: CO2 and Water
Tube: Water
Source: Kern, 1950 (2) (Aqueous Solutions 250-500 Btu/F/h/ft2)
2. CO2 Absorber OH Cooler
Shell: Syngas
Tube: Water
Source: Perry, 2008 (3) (H2 Containing Natural-Gas Mixtures 80-125 Btu/F/h/ft2)
3. Lean Amine Air Cooler
Tube: Lean Amine
Source: Brown, 1978 (4) (Ammonia 100-120 Btu/F/h/ft2, Water 120-140 Btu/F/h/ft2)
Note: Lean amine solution is ~90% Water, ~10% aMDEA, and <1% CO2. May be
able to use above values for approximation
4. Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger
Shell: Most likely lean amine since it has less CO2 and less corrosive
Tube: Most likely semilean amine since it has more CO2
Source: Perry, 2008 (3) (Ethanol amine 10-25% solution shell side 140-200 Btu/F/h/ft2)
Note: No exact match, can use above source as approximate value
5. Stripper Reboiler
Shell: Most likely lean amine
Tube: Most likely water
C-4
Source: Perry, 2008 (3) (Ethanol amine 10-25% solution shell side 140-200 Btu/F/h/ft2)
Note: same comments as Item 4
3. CO2 Absorber Separation

To confirm the accuracy of the CO2 Absorber simulation as well as the design basis it was
based on, the number of stages required to obtain the stated absorption of CO2 from the syngas
stream was calculated. Reasonable agreement between the calculated number of stages and the
actual number of stages provided in the CO2 Absorber data sheet. Since the simulation of the CO2
Absorber was created from the design basis and the data sheet, this agreement validates the
simulation. Detailed calculations are shown in the following pages.
C-5
C-6
C-7
4. Compression Stage
The CO2 stream leaving the LP Flash Stripper is compressed before being sent to battery
limits. In the process flow diagram provided, this step was shown as a single compressor with
a note that states “compressor includes required intercoolers, separators, and antisurge
protection”. According to GPSA (5) (Pg 13.11), the maximum recommended outlet
temperature of a compressor is 150 °C. This design limitation is taken into account to avoid
damage to lubricants and seals. Following this constraint, the number of stages required was
calculated to be three as shown below. The number of stages was simulated in BRE Promax
for the base case as well as the redesigns.
C-8
C-9
List of References
97087683-2-3.
2. Process Heat Transfer. Kern, D. Q. New York : McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950.
3. Perry, Robert H and Green, Don W. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 8th. New York :
McGraw-Hill, 2007. 978-0071422949.
4. A Procedure for Preliminary Estimate. Brown, R. s.l. : Chem. Eng., 1978, Vol. 85.
5. Engineering Data Book. Gas Processors Suppliers Association. Tulsa : s.n., 2004, Vol. 1 and
2.
C-10
Appendix D: Separation Calculations

Description
The purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate understanding of separation as it relates to
the revamp project. The analysis will focus on the CO2 Absorber, C-80, and the LP Flash Stripper,
C-82. This appendix will include separation calculations and additional information pertaining to
the 112% and 125% capacity redesign.
Table of Contents
1. Number of Stages .................................................................................................................. D-1
2. Pressure Drop ........................................................................................................................ D-3
2.1. Sample Pressure Drop Calculations .............................................................................. D-3
2.2. CO2 Absorber ................................................................................................................ D-4
2.2.1. Base Case (IMTP #40) ............................................................................................ D-4
2.2.2. 112% Case (IMTP #40) ........................................................................................... D-5
2.2.3. 125% Case (IMTP #40) ........................................................................................... D-6
2.2.4. 125% Case (IMTP #25) ........................................................................................... D-6
2.3. LP Flash Stripper ........................................................................................................... D-7
2.3.1. Base Case (IMTP #50) ............................................................................................ D-7
2.3.2. 125% Case (IMTP #40) ........................................................................................... D-8
3. Column Diameter Considerations ......................................................................................... D-9
4. Column Height Considerations ............................................................................................. D-9
4.1. Trays .............................................................................................................................. D-9
4.2. Packing Height .............................................................................................................. D-9
4.3. Disengagement Height ................................................................................................ D-10
4.4. Height of Liquid Pool .................................................................................................. D-10
5. Additional Cost ................................................................................................................... D-10
List of References ..................................................................................................................... D-11
i
1. Number of Stages
Using the composition of the streams entering and leaving the CO2 Absorber in the 125%
capacity simulation, the number of stages and consequently the amount of packing required were
validated in the following calculations.
D-1
D-2
2. Pressure Drop
2.1. Sample Pressure Drop Calculations
D-3
2.2. CO2 Absorber

2.2.1. Base Case (IMTP #40)
Base Case Absorber (IMTP #40)
Total Pressure Drop, ΔPt (in H2O/ft) 0.326 kPa/m 0.266
Dry Pressure Drop, ΔPd (in H2O/ft) 0.321
Pressure Drop due to Liquid, ΔPL (in H2O/ft) 0.004
Gas Loading Factor, Gf (lb/hr*ft2) 1426.94

Liquid Loading Factor, Lf (lb/hr*ft2) 12188.56
Superficial F-factor for Gas, Fs (ft/s(lb/ft3)0.5) 0.703

Dry Packing Factor, Fpd (ft-1) 25.91 m-1 85.00
Gas Density, ρG (lb/ft3) 0.858 kg/m3 13.75
Liquid Mass Velocity, L (lb/hr*ft2) 15960.32
Liquid Density, ρL (lb/ft3) 64.21 kg/m3 1028.57
Liquid Viscosity, µL (cP) 0.025 Pa*s 0.002
Cross Sectional Area, A (ft2) 81.24 m2 7.55
D-4
Volumetric Gas Flow (ft3/s) 61.62 m3/s 1.74

Superficial Gas Flow, Ut (ft/s) 0.76
Liquid Mass Flow (lb/hr) 1296656.52 kg/s 163.38
Column Pressure Drop

Packing Height (m) 8.60
Pressure Drop (kPa) 2.29
Actual Pressure Drop (kPa) 10.00
Contingency Factor 4.38
2.2.2. 112% Case (IMTP #40)

112% Case Absorber (IMTP #40)




Calculated Pressure Drop (kPa) 8.80
Note: 25 kPa was used in the 112% simulation case.
D-5
2.2.3. 125% Case (IMTP #40)





2.2.4. 125% Case (IMTP #25)


D-6



Note: 40 kPa was used in 125% simulation case.
2.3. LP Flash Stripper

2.3.1. Base Case (IMTP #50)
Base Case LP Flash (IMTP #50)



D-7


2.3.2. 125% Case (IMTP #40)

125% Case LP Flash (IMTP #40)




Note: 5 kPa was used in the 125% simulation case.
D-8
3. Column Diameter Considerations

The pressure drops were calculated and adjusted to keep the diameter of the CO2 Absorber and
the LP Flash Stripper. Using the pressure drops and the resulting flow rates, the diameter of the
columns were confirmed to stay the same across the redesign cases using the Eckert generalized
pressure drop correlation (1).
4. Column Height Considerations

An estimate of the column height considers the space occupied by trays (number of stages with
the tray spacing) and packing, the disengagement height at the top of the column, and the height
of liquid pool at the bottom. Taking these into account, the columns were verified to handle the
increase in capacity.
4.1. Trays
The CO2 Absorber has three backwash trays at the top of the column. Tray spacing is
usually 2 ft. According to the data sheet provided, the tray spacing is 1.64 ft. Since these trays only
serve the purpose of preventing entrainment of amine into the overhead stream, the lower tray
spacing is acceptable. In the 125% redesign, the backwash tray spacing was kept at 1.64 ft (500
mm).
4.2. Packing Height

Still looking at the CO2 Absorber, the packing type was changed, and the amount was
increased to increase the amount of CO2 removed from the inlet stream. Increasing the amount of
packing changes the total height in the column occupied by packing. Considerations were made to
ensure that the placement of additional packing did not interfere with existing nozzles. Liquid
distributors were also integrated to ensure proper flow through the packing.
D-9
4.3. Disengagement Height

Disengagement height is required to allow the liquid to disengage from the vapour.
Typically, this height is around 5 to 10 ft (1.5 – 3 m). In the provided CO2 Absorber data sheet,
the top backwash tray is located approximately 6 ft from the top of the column. The recommended
disengagement height is met and kept for the 125% capacity redesign.
4.4. Height of Liquid Pool

At the bottom of the tower, some surge protection is needed which typically corresponds
to 5 to 10 minutes worth of flow. In the 125% capacity redesign, the total liquid flow to the CO2
Absorber is 0.166 m3/s. In 5 minutes, the corresponding volume accumulated is 49.7 m3. Using
the column diameter of 3.1 m, this corresponds to a required surge height of 6.6 m (21.7 ft). The
provided data sheet shows 7.9 m (25.9 ft) from the bottom of the column to the inlet syngas nozzle.
With the increase in capacity, the tower still has adequate surge height.
5. Additional Cost
To obtain better separation of CO2 from the syngas stream, packing with higher efficiency is
required. Changing the existing packing to a higher efficiency type as well as increasing the
amount of it in the CO2 Absorber incurs additional cost. Installation of the new packing will also
require labour from trained personnel. Similar costs will be incurred in changing the packing type
in the LP Flash Stripper.
D-10
List of References
2.
2. Perry, Robert H and Green, Don W. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 8th. New York :
McGraw-Hill, 2007. 978-0071422949.
D-11
Appendix E: Drawing Package

Description
This appendix contains the index, plot plan, block diagram, process flow diagram, and the
piping and instrumentation diagram. A stream table and equipment list for the entire process is
also included.
A plot plan was created for the base, 112% design, and 125% design case. The base and
112% design case have identical plot plans since the 112% design case does not require any
addition equipment or resizing. The 125% design case includes the lean amine cooler (E-85) that
was added for further cooling of the lean amine to the CO2 absorber (C-80).
A process flow diagram was created for the base, 112% design, and 125% design case. The
base and 112% design case have identical plot plans since the 112% design case does not require
any addition equipment. The 125% design case includes the E-85 that was added for further
cooling of the lean amine to C-80.
A piping and instrumentation diagram was created for E-85 in the 125% design case. The
base and 112% design case does not have a piping and instrumentation diagram since the proper
information was not provided to Okane Engineering to draw one.
i
Table of Contents
1. List of Drawings ....................................................................................................................E-1
2. Plot Plan for the Base and 112% Design Case ......................................................................E-1
3. Plot Plan for the 125% Design Case ......................................................................................E-3
4. Block Flow Diagram ..............................................................................................................E-4
5. Stream Table for the Base Case .............................................................................................E-5
6. Stream Table for the 112% Case ...........................................................................................E-6
7. Process Flow Diagram for the Base and 112% Cases ...........................................................E-7
8. Stream Table for the 125% Case ...........................................................................................E-8
9. Process Flow Diagram for the 125% Case ............................................................................E-9
10. Process Flow Diagram for the Vendor Compression Unit ..................................................E-10
11. Line Designation Table for CN49PID .................................................................................E-11
12. CN49PID for E-85 ...............................................................................................................E-12
ii
DRAWING NO. DRAWING TITLE REV REMARKS
INDEX OKANE ENGINEERING INDEX 0
CN49PLT PLOT PLAN - UNIT 49 - BASE AND 112% DESIGN CASE 1
CN49PLT PLOT PLAN - UNIT 49 - 125% DESIGN CASE 1
CN49BFD BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM - UNIT 49 1
STREAM TABLE STREAM TABLE FOR BASE CASE 0 CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LTD.
STREAM TABLE STREAM TABLE FOR 112% DESIGN CASE 0 REVAMP OF CO2 RECOVERY PLANT
CN49PFD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - UNIT 49 - BASE AND 112% DESIGN CASE 4
STREAM TABLE STREAM TABLE FOR 125% DESIGN CASE 0
CN49PFD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - UNIT 49 - 125% DESIGN CASE 4
CM49PFD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - UNIT 49 - COMPRESSOR STAGE 1
LDT LINE DESIGNATION TABLE - E-85 0 INDEX
CN49PID PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM - E-85 2
1. List of Drawings
1. List of Drawings
2. E-1
SCALE (m) : EQUIPMENT LIST
Prevailing Wind
2.5 5 10 20 Direction E-80 – CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler
E-81A/B – Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger

Plot Plan for the Base and 112% Design Case
E-82 – Stripper Reboiler
Pipe Rack
Elevevation: 7m E-83 – Stripper Overhead Condensor
E-84 – Lean Amine Air Cooler
C-80 – CO 2 Absorber
C-81 – HP Amine Flash Drum

ROAD
C-82 – LP Flash Stripper
C-83 – Reflux Vessel

C-85 C-84
E-84 C-84 – Make-Up Storage Vessel
PUMP G-86A
C-87 – Absorber Overhead K.O Drum
PUMP G-86A
G-84 G-82A PUMP G-81A/B – Semilean Amine Pump
PUMP G-86B PUMP
G-82B PUMP G-82A/B/C – HP Lean Amine Pump
PUMP G-87A
G-82C PUMP ROAD G-83A/B – Stripper Reflux Pump
PUMP G-87B E-81A/B
G-84 – Amine Make-Up Pump
G-81A PUMP
E-82 G-81B PUMP KEY PLAN

C-83
PUMP G-83A/B
E-80
C-86 E-83
FTR-80
C-87
C-81
C-80
C-82
ROAD Revamp of Carbon Dioxide Recovery Plant
PLOT PLAN – BASE & 112% DESIGN CASE
BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV

DAT E : 2019/03/ 14 CN49PLT 1
E-2
SCALE (m) : EQUIPMENT LIST
Prevailing Wind
2.5 5 10 20 Direction E-80 – CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler
E-81A/B/C – Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger

3. Plot Plan for the 125% Design Case
E-82 – Stripper Reboiler
Pipe Rack
E-83 – Stripper Overhead Condensor
Elevevation: 7m
E-84 – Lean Amine Air Cooler
E-85A/B – Lean Amine Cooler
C-80 – CO 2 Absorber
ROAD C-81 – HP Amine Flash Drum
C-82 – LP Flash Stripper
C-84 C-83 – Reflux Vessel

C-85
PUMP G-86A C-84 – Make-Up Storage Vessel
E-84
PUMP G-86A C-87 – Absorber Overhead K.O Drum
G-84 G-82A PUMP
PUMP G-86B PUMP G-81A/B – Semilean Amine Pump
G-82B PUMP
G-82A/B/C – HP Lean Amine Pump
PUMP G-87A
G-82C PUMP G-83A/B – Stripper Reflux Pump
PUMP G-87B E-81A/B/C
ROAD G-84 – Amine Make-Up Pump
G-81A PUMP
E-82 G-81B PUMP KEY PLAN

C-83
PUMP G-83A/B
E-85A/B
E-80
C-86 E-83
FTR-80
C-87
C-81
C-80
C-82
ROAD Revamp of Carbon Dioxide Recovery Plant
PLOT PLAN – DESIGN CASE

DAT E : 2019/03/ 14 CN49PLT 1
E-3
4. Block Flow Diagram
Pressure Swing
Tail Gas
Absorption
Lean Amine
Rich Amine Vendor

CO2 Amine Lean Amine Dehydration
Compression CO2 Product
Absorption Regeneration Unit
Unit
Syngas
Project Scope
Separation
System
Boiler Feed
Water
High
Process Gas Temperature
Reaction
1 ADDITION OF DEHYDRATION BLOCK EK 2019/01/ 31

BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM
0 BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM DRAFT EK 2019/01/ 23 BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE DATE: 2019/03/01 CMP49BFD 1
E-4
2. Block Flow Diagram L-4
5. Stream Table for the Base Case
E-5
L-5
6. Stream Table for the 112% Case
E-6
L-6
E-80 C-87 C-82 E-83 G-83A/B C-83 E-82 C-81
CO2 Absorber Absorber Overhead LP Flash Stripper Stripper Overhead Stripper Reflux Reflux Vessel Stripper Reboiler HP Amine Flash Drum
3 3 2 3
Overhead Cooler K.O. Drum Volume: 443.0 m Condenser Pump Volume: 36.8 m Area: 298.1 m Volume: 75.0 m
2 3 2
Area: 90.0 m Volume: 9.7 m Area: 381.0 m Duty: 1 kW
E-84 G-82A/B/C E-81A/B G-81A/B G-84 C-80 C-84
Lean Amine Air HP Lean Amine 7. Process Flow DiagramSemilean
for the
Lean/Rich Amine Base and
Amine Amine112%
Make-Up Cases CO Absorber 2
3
Make Up Storage
Cooler Pump Exchanger Pump Pump Volume: 177.0 m Vessel
2
Duty: 27838 kW Duty: 1158 kW Area: 1217.6 m Duty: 120 kW 37 CMP49PFD

E-83
(49-V-400) 28
35 36
E-80
LC C-83
26 27 CWS CWR
FC LC C-87 95
CWS CWR
LP Condensate 72 77
93
LC
94
FC
96
87 G-83A/B
Synthesis Gas 25
C-80 LC
82
FC
PC C-82
Process Water to
Flash Gas to Steam Battery Limits
Methane Reformer 75
C-81 E-81A/B
83 78 FC
73 74
LC E-82 LP Steam
81
86 76
LP Condensate
85
E-84 84
C-84
LP Steam
G-84
Amine Solution
4 SEPARATION OF COMPRESSION STAGES FROM MAIN BODY EK 2019/03/08

3 DEHYDRATION UNIT ADJUSTMENT EK 2019/03/01
2 ADJUSTMENT AFTER ACADEMIC ADVISOR MEETING EK 2019/02/23
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM–_UNIT 49 –_BASE AND 112% CASE
1 ADJUSTMENT AFTER INDUSTRIAL MEETING EK 2019/01/31
0 PFD DRAFT EK 2019/01/23 BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE DATE: 2019/03/01 E-7
CN49PFD 4
L-7
8. Stream Table for the 125% Case
E-8
L-8
E-80 C-87 C-82 E-83 G-83A/B C-83 E-82 C-81
CO 2 Absorber Absorber Overhead LP Flash Stripper Stripper Overhead Stripper Reflux Reflux Vessel Stripper Reboiler HP Amine Flash Drum
Overhead Cooler K.O. Drum Volume: 443 m3 Condenser Pump Volume: 36.8 m3 Area: 301.1 m2 Volume: 75 m3
Area: 74.39 m2 Volume: 9.7 m3 Area: 382.1 m2 Duty: 1 kW
E-84 G-82A/B/C E-81A/B/C G-81A/B G-84 E-85A/B C-80 C-84
Lean Amine Air HP Lean Amine Lean/Rich Amine Semilean Amine Amine Make-Up Lean Amine Cooler CO 2 Absorber Make Up Storage
Cooler Pump Exchanger Pump Pump Area: 815.4 m2 Volume: 177 m3 Vessel
2
Duty: 24870 kW Duty: 1185 kW Area: 1772.2 m Duty: 123 kW
9. Process Flow Diagram for the 125% Case E-83
37 CMP4 9PFD

(4 9-V-400)
28
E-80 35 36
LC C-83
26 27 CWS CWR
FC LC C-87 95
CWS CWR
LP Condensate 72 77
93
LC
94
FC
96
87 G-83A/B
Synthesis Gas 25
C-80 LC
82
FC
86 PC C-82
Process Water to
Flash Gas to Steam Battery Limits
75
Methane Reformer
C-81 E-81A/B/C
83 78 FC
E-85A/B 73 74
CWS CWR LC E-82 LP Steam
81
86C 76
LP Condensate
85
E-84 84
C-84
LP Steam
G-84
Amine Solution Revamp of Carbon Dioxide Recovery Plant
4 SEPARATION OF COMPRESSION STAGES FROM MAIN BODY EK 2019/03/ 08

3 DEHYDRATION UNIT ADJUSTMEN T EK 2019/03/ 01
2 ADJUSTMENT AFTER ACADEMIC ADVISOR MEETING EK 2019/02/ 23
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM – UNIT 49 – CASE
1 ADJUSTMENT AFTER INDUSTRIAL MEETING EK 2019/01/ 31
0 PFD DRAFT EK 2019/01/ 23 BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE DATE: 2019/03/01 CN49 PFD 4
E-9
L-9
K-100 K-101 K-102 D-100/101 E-101/102/103
CO2 Product CO 2 Product CO 2 Product Knockout Drums Interstage Coolers
Compressor Compressor Compressor
10.1606Process
Duty (112%): kW Flow
Duty Diagram
(112%): 1521 kWfor Duty
the Vendor Compression
(112%): 1416 kW Unit
Duty (125%): 1831 kW Duty (125%): 1670 kW Duty (125%): 1541 kW
CN49PFD
37
PC PC PC
K-100 K-101 K-102
37D 37H
CWS CWS CWS

37A 37E 37I
CO2 Product to
37B 37F 38 Dehydration Unit
CWR CWR CWR

E-101 E-102 E-103
LC LC
D-100 D-101
37C 37G
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM – COMP RESSION STAGE

1 REMOVAL OF FOU RTH STAGE EK 2019/03/10
0 COMP RESSION STAGE DRAFT EK 2019/03/08 BY: E. KWAK DRAWING NUMBER REV
REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE DATE: 2019/03/01 CMP49PFD 1
E-10
L-10
LINE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION MECHANICAL OPREATING CONDITIONS DESIGN CONDITIONS REFERENCE DRAWINGS
COM LINE NO PIPE SIZE FROM TO SERVICE MATERIAL TEMP ( C) PRESSURE (kPag) TEMP ( C) PRESSURE (kPag) P&ID
AOAA 86C 16 LEAN AMINE AIR COOLER (E-84) LEAN AMINE COOLER (E-85) LEAN SS-316 41 4099 165 6448 CN49PID
AOAA 86 16 LEAN AMINE COOLER (E-85) CARBON DIOXIDE ABSORBER (C-80) LEAN SS-316 35 4099 165 6448 CN49PID
CWS 86 10 UTILITY COOLING WATER TANK LEAN AMINE COOLER (E-85) WATER SS-316 24 500 65 550 CN49PID
CWR 86 10 LEAN AMINE COOLER (E-85) WATER DRAIN/RECYCLE SYSTEM WATER SS-316 32 480 65 550 CN49PID
Notes:
11. Line Designation Table for CN49PID
E-11
L-11
12. CN49PID for E-85
E-12
L-12
Appendix F: Start-Up and Shutdown Procedures

Description
This appendix outlines the modifications that will be needed for start-up and shutdown of
the CO2 Recovery Plant in the 112% and 125% capacity redesigns.
Table of Contents
1. 112% Capacity Redesign ....................................................................................................... F-1
2. 125% Capacity Redesign ....................................................................................................... F-1
2.1. Start-Up Procedures ....................................................................................................... F-1
2.2. Shutdown Procedures ..................................................................................................... F-2
i
1. 112% Capacity Redesign

No equipment is added or modified in the 112% capacity redesign. Start-up and shutdown
procedures shall be consistent with the existing procedures. Only the flow rate of amine solution
will need to be adjusted when filling the amine system with lean amine solution during start-up.
The pressure, temperature, and flow rate setpoints that need to be adjusted are identified below:
Table K1: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 112% Capacity Redesign

No
86 Lean Amine from Air Cooler Temperature 45.0 °C 41.5 °C
2. 125% Capacity Redesign

2.1. Start-Up Procedures
Passivation of the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) should be completed according to the
existing passivation procedures developed by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. prior to
commissioning the exchanger. This is recommended in order to provide better corrosion protection
for the carbon steel shell of the exchanger. The following must also be added to the requirements
for preparation prior to start-up of the CO2 Recovery Plant:
• The amine system, including the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) and Lean/Rich Amine
Exchanger (E-81A/B/C), must be filled with lean amine solution
F-1
• The column packings must be flushed and degreased before being installed into the
CO2 Absorber (C-80) and LP Flash Stripper (C-82)
• The cooling water supply to the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) must be in operation
after the system is filled with lean amine solution
• The upsized Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum (C-87) and Reflux Vessel (C-83)
must be filled with condensate or demineralized water to prevent dew point corrosion
During the start-up sequence, the cooling water supply to the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) must
be increased prior to operating the Stripper Reboiler (E-82) at full steam flow rates. This is to the
prevent the hot lean amine solution from vaporizing the cooling water in the tube side of the Lean
Amine Cooler (E-85A/B). This would result in over pressurization of the exchanger tubes and
would trigger the release of steam from the pressure relief valve on the cooling water outlet piping.
The pressure, temperature, and flow rate setpoints that need to be adjusted are identified below:
Table K2: Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Rate Changes for the 125% Capacity Redesign

No
72 Steam Condensate to CO2 Absorber Flow Rate 122 kmol/h 130 kmol/h
86(C) Lean Amine from Air Cooler Temperature 45.0 °C 40 °C
- LP Flash Stripper Bottom Operating Pressure 50 kPa(g) 55 kPa(g)
2.2. Shutdown Procedures

Cooling water to the Lean Amine Cooler (E-85A/B) should be turned off after the steam
flow rate to the Stripper Reboiler (E-82) is reduced to avoid vaporization of water in the tubes.
F-2
Appendix G: Detailed Material and Energy Balances

Description
This appendix contains the detailed material and energy balance tables for the base, 112%,
and 125% cases. The tables all include the stream numbers and corresponding descriptions.
Table of Contents
1. Overall Material Balances..................................................................................................... G-1
1.1. Base Case ...................................................................................................................... G-1
1.2. 112% Case ..................................................................................................................... G-2
1.3. 125% Case ..................................................................................................................... G-3
2. Overall Energy Balances....................................................................................................... G-4
2.1. Base Case ...................................................................................................................... G-5
2.2. 112% Case ..................................................................................................................... G-6
2.3. 125% Case ..................................................................................................................... G-7
i
1. Overall Material Balances

Mass balances were constructed using stream flow rates outputted by the simulation. Individual
mass balances around each equipment were checked and verified minimal losses as indicated by
overall mass balance agreements shown in the following sections. Mass was conserved for all three
cases.
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐼𝑛 = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑂𝑢𝑡
1.1. Base Case

(kmol/h) (kmol/h)
Amine MakeUp Amine Makeup 0.0 -
IN

96 - 28.2
OUT
Water Header
Total (kmol/h) 8344.1 8344.1
G-1
1.2. 112% Case

(kmol/h) (kmol/h)
IN

96 - 21.0
OUT
Water Header
Total (kmol/h) 9270.0 9270.0
G-2
1.3. 125% Case

(kmol/h) (kmol/h)
IN

96 -
OUT
Water Header 36.7

Total (kmol/h) 10403.1 10403.0
G-3
2. Overall Energy Balances

The energy balances were constructed using simulation output. In the model validation
appendix, it had been shown that specific heat capacities of streams were adequately modelled in
the simulation and the duty as well as heat exchange areas had been verified for the heat
exchangers. Note that a Fictional Exchanger has been added to the semilean pump-around to reflect
stream properties in the design basis. Also, due to inadequacy of the simulation to reflect the
exothermic absorption process, another fictitious heat exchanger with a duty of 918 kW was
introduced to reflect this in the absorber as shown in the addendum simulation file “CO2 Recovery
Unit Simulation (Addendum) Rev0”. This duty was then deducted from the E-80 duties in the
original simulation files. Without having accounted for this duty, the size of the E-80 would have
been twice as large as what it really is.
Further validation of stream enthalpies involved in the overall energy balance was performed.
These enthalpies were multiplied by the mass flow rates for ease of comparison with the base case
energy balance provided below. Since the design basis flow rates were used in the base case
simulation, this multiplication is acceptable. Good agreement between the actual design basis
values and the simulated values support the accuracy of the energy balances included in this study.
Stream Actual Mass Simulated Mass Percent

Description
Name Enthalpy (kJ/s) Enthalpy (kJ/s) Difference (%)
25 SG to CO2 Absorber -165,308 -165,345 0.02
SG from CO2 Recovery -34,363 -34,363 0.00
28
Unit
38 CO2 to Dehydration Unit -131,743 -130,910 0.63
G-4
2.1. Base Case

(kW) (kW)
Amine MakeUp Amine Makeup 0 -
IN

75 Flash Gas from HP Amine Flash Drum - -977
Process Condensate to BL Process Water
96 - -2,230
OUT
Header
Amine Blowdown Amine Blowdown - -111
E-81A/B Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (Semilean Side) 18,149 -
E-81A/B Lean Amine Exchanger (Lean Side) 18,149
E-82 Stripper Reboiler 31,600
E-83 Stripper Overhead Condenser 2,362
Fictional Exchanger Semilean Amine Preheat 9
EQUIPMENT
E-84 Lean Amine Air Cooler 27,838

E-101 Interstage Compression Cooler 1 2,392
G-81A/B Semilean Amine Pump 111
G-82A/B/C HP Lean Amine Pump 1,143
G-83A/B Stripper Reflux Pump 1
K-100 CO2 Product Compressor 1 1,488
Total (kW) -120,130 -120,129
G-5
2.2. 112% Case

(kW) (kW)
Amine MakeUp Amine Makeup 0 -
IN

96 - -1,659
OUT
Header
E-81A/B Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (Semilean Side) 21,225 -
E-81A/B Lean Amine Exchanger (Lean Side) - 21,225
Fictional Exchanger Semilean Amine Preheat 13 -
EQUIPMENT

E-101 Interstage Compression Cooler 1 - 2,524
K-100 CO2 Product Compressor 1 1,606 -
Total (kW) -135,046 -135,035
G-6
2.3. 125% Case

(kW) (kW)
Amine MakeUp Amine Makeup -211 -
IN

96 - -2,898
OUT
Header
E-81A/B/C Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger (Semilean Side) 27,059
E-81A/B/C Lean Amine Exchanger (Lean Side) 27,059
Fictional Exchanger Semilean Amine Preheat 14
EQUIPMENT

E-85A/B Lean Amine Cooler - 3,467
G-81 Semilean Amine Pump 123 -
G-82 HP Lean Amine Pump 1,185 -
G-83 Stripper Reflux Pump 1 -
Total (kW) -152,103 -152,047
G-7
Appendix H: Detailed Equipment List and Sizing

Description
This appendix includes calculations completed to obtain sizes of equipment included in the
existing plant as well as those required for a capacity increase to 125 %. The existing operating
data for each equipment, the output of the base case simulation, as well as the output of the capacity
increase redesign are compared to identify additional units to be procured. Heat exchangers,
separators, and pumps were sized using Gas Processors Suppliers Association Engineering Data
Book.
Table of Contents
1. Detailed Equipment List – Base Case ................................................................................... H-1
2. Detailed Equipment List – 112 % Case ................................................................................ H-5
3. Detailed Equipment List – 125 % Case ................................................................................ H-9
4. Heat Exchanger Sizing ........................................................................................................ H-13
4.1. Operating Data Provided ............................................................................................. H-13
4.2. Design Data Sheet Provided ........................................................................................ H-14
4.3. Heat Exchanger Sizing Sample Calculations .............................................................. H-15
4.4. Base Case Sizes ........................................................................................................... H-16
4.5. 112 % Case Sizes ........................................................................................................ H-18
4.6. 125 % Case Sizes ........................................................................................................ H-19
5. Vessel Sizing....................................................................................................................... H-21
5.2. Separator Sizing Sample Calculations ........................................................................ H-22
5.3. Base Case Sizes ........................................................................................................... H-28
5.4. 112 % Case Sizes ........................................................................................................ H-29
5.5. 125 % Case Sizes ........................................................................................................ H-30
6. Column Sizing .................................................................................................................... H-31
i

6.1.1. CO2 Absorber (C-80) ............................................................................................. H-32
6.1.2. LP Flash Stripper (C-82) ....................................................................................... H-35
7. Pump Sizing ........................................................................................................................ H-39
7.2. Base Case .................................................................................................................... H-40
7.1. Pump Sizing Methodology .......................................................................................... H-42
7.2. 112 % Case .................................................................................................................. H-42
7.3. 125 % Case .................................................................................................................. H-44
8. Process Lines Sizing ........................................................................................................... H-45
8.1. Methodology ............................................................................................................... H-45
8.1.1. Single Phase Vapour Flow .................................................................................... H-46
8.1.2. Single Phase Liquid Flow...................................................................................... H-46
8.1.3. Two Phase Flow .................................................................................................... H-47
8.2. Sample Calculations .................................................................................................... H-47
8.2.1. Single Phase Flow ................................................................................................. H-47
8.2.2. Two-Phase Flow .................................................................................................... H-51
8.2.3. Pipe Thickness ....................................................................................................... H-53
8.1. Size of Main Process Lines Summary ......................................................................... H-56
9. Material Selection ............................................................................................................... H-57
9.1. Potential Cracking Mechanisms .................................................................................. H-57
9.1.1. Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) .............................................................................. H-57
9.1.2. Hydrogen-induced Cracking (HIC) ....................................................................... H-57
9.1.3. Stress-Oriented Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (SOHIC)........................................ H-58
9.1.4. Alkaline Stress Corrosion Cracking (ASCC) ........................................................ H-58
9.1.5. Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking ...................................................................... H-59
9.1.6. Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking ......................................................................... H-59
9.2. Potential Corrosion Mechanisms................................................................................. H-60
9.2.1. Erosion / Erosion-Corrosion .................................................................................. H-60
9.2.2. Vibration-Induced Fatigue .................................................................................... H-60
9.2.3. Cavitation .............................................................................................................. H-61
ii
9.2.4. Cooling Water Corrosion ...................................................................................... H-61

9.2.5. CO2 Corrosion ....................................................................................................... H-61
9.2.6. Flue-Gas Dew-Point Corrosion ............................................................................. H-62
9.2.7. Hydrogen Embrittlement ....................................................................................... H-62
9.2.8. Amine Corrosion ................................................................................................... H-63
9.2.9. High Temp H2/H2S Corrosion ............................................................................... H-63
9.3. Carbon Steel ................................................................................................................ H-63
9.3.1. Killed Carbon Steel ............................................................................................... H-64
9.4. Stainless Steel .............................................................................................................. H-64
List of References ..................................................................................................................... H-66
iii
1. Detailed Equipment List – Base Case

Equipment Identification Heat Exchangers
Number E-80 E-81A/B/C E-82 E-83 E-84
CO2 Absorber Lean/Rich Amine Stripper Reboiler Stripper Overhead Lean Amine Air
Name
Overhead Cooler Exchanger Condenser Cooler
Stream Number 26 81 83 35 85
Semilean Amine to Lean Amine from
SG from CO2 Lean Amine from LP CO2 from LP
Name L/R Amine HP Lean Amine
Absorber Flash Stripper Flash Stripper
Exchanger Pump
Process Orientation Shell-Side Cold Side Shell-Side Shell-Side Hot Side
Phase Vapour Liquid Liquid In, Vapour Out Vapour Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 57 76 114 66 88
Out 40 90 114 45 45
Pressure (kPa) In 3376 740 151 141 4300
Out 3350 145 151 125 4200
Flow Rate Mass (kg/h) 34028 551918 588052 57137 588052
Volumetric (m3/h) 5817 523 601 28959 588
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 6 1056 978 2 1001
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 6.19 3.71 4.22 0.98 4.08
Ave. Viscosity (mPa.s) 1.24E-08 1.31E-06 6.21E-07 1.67E-08 9.50E-07
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -3677 -10837 -10578 -9285 -10682
Out -3811 -10718 -12841 -9434 -10853
Stream Number CWS1 83 CWS2
Lean Amine from

Name Cooling Water LP Steam Cooling Water Air
LP Flash Stripper
Process Orientation Tube-Side Hot Side Tube-Side Tube-Side Cold Side

Phase Liquid Liquid Vapour In, Liquid Out Liquid Vapour
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 24 114 156 24 17
Out 40 87 143 40 22
Pressure (kPa) In 601 151 400 601 101
Out 549 140 581 101
Volumetric (m3/h) 68.50 601 127.61 5000.00
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 997 978 997
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 4.18 4.22 3.26 4.18 1.00
Ave. Viscosity (mPa.s) 9.34E-01 6.21E-07 9.34E-01
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -15858 -10578 -15858
Out -15791 -10689 -15791
Heat-Transfer Coefficient
(J/m2s*K) 489 1532 965 267 795
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s) 349 18149 31600 2362 27838
LMTD (℃) 9.46 9.94 23.54 42.31
MTD (℃) 109
FT 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Δtm 8.04 9.94 108.71 23.54 40.62
Utilities
Electricity (kW) 235.8
Cooling Water (m3/h) 68.50 127.61
Equipment Size
Length or height, L (m) 8.049
Width or diameter, D (m)
Surface Area, A (m2) 85.8 1190.0 1150.0 381.7
Volume, V (m3)
Design Pressure (kPa) 3801 801
Shaft Power, ws (kW)
Physical Orientation
Material of Construction SS 304L/SS 316L SS 316L CS/SS 316L SS 316L CS
Other Specifications
H-1
Equipment Identification Vessels

Number C-81 C-83 C-87
HP Flash Drum Reflux Vessel Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum
Name
Stream Number 74 75 36 37 27 28
CO2 to CO2
Rich Amine to HP Flash Gas from HP CO2 to Reflux SG from CO2 SG from CO2
Name Product
Amine Flash Drum Amine Flash Drum Vessel Absorber OH Cooler Recovery Unit
Compressor
Process Orientation
Phase Mixed Vapour Mixed Vapour Mixed Vapour
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 75 45 40
Out 75 44 40
Pressure (kPa) In 875 125 3350
Out 875 120 3350
Flow Rate Mass (kg/h) 643079 410 57137 54067 34028 33651
3
Volumetric (m /h) 646 52 27026 28115 5538 5537
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 995 8 2 2 6 6
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Stream Number 76 93 87
Process
Rich Amine from Process Cond. From
Condensate to
Name HP Amine Flash Absorber OH K.O.
Stripper Reflux
Drum Drum
Pump
Process Orientation
Phase Liquid Liquid Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In
Out 75 44 40
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 875 120 3350
Flow Rate Mass (kg/h) 642668 3070 378
3
Volumetric (m /h) 594 3 0
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 1081 990 991
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Cooling Water (m3/h)
Equipment Size
Length or height, L (m) 19.8 3.9 3.7
Width or diameter, D (m) 2.2 2.2 1.4
Surface Area, A (m2)
Volume, V (m3) 75.4 14.8 5.7
Design Pressure (kPa)
Physical Orientation Vertical Vertical Vertical
Material of Construction CS/ SS 316L SS 304L CS
H-2
Equipment Identification Columns

Number C-80 C-82
CO2 Absorber LP Flash Stripper
Name
Stream Number 25 72 86 77 82 95
Lean Amine from Process
SG to CO2 Steam Condensate Rich Amine to LP Semilean Amine to
Name Lean Amine Air Condensate to LP
Absorber to CO2 Absorber Flash Stripper LP Flash Stripper
Cooler Flash Stripper
Process Orientation
Phase Vapour Liquid Liquid Mixed Mixed Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 40 45 45 65 90 45
Out
Pressure (kPa) In 3426 3376 4200 143 145 141
Out
Volumetric (m3/h) 6281 2 572 8695 14766 3
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 14 990 1029 74 37 990
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Ave. Viscosity (mPa.s) 1.44E-08 6.16E-07 2.46E-06 6.15E-07
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Semilean Amine
SG from CO2 Rich Amine from Lean Amine from CO2 from LP
Name from LP Flash
Absorber CO2 Absorber LP Flash Stripper Flash Stripper
Stripper
Process Orientation
Phase Vapour Liquid Liquid Liquid Vapour
Residence Time (s)
Out 57 74 76 114 66
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 3376 3435 222 151 141
Volumetric (m3/h) 5817 594 523 601 28959
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 6 1082 1056 978 2
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size
Length or height, L (m) 23.5 39.1
Width or diameter, D (m) 3.1 3.8
Volume, V (m3) 177 443
Physical Orientation Vertical Vertical
Material of Construction CS CS/SS 316L
Vertical tower with Montz-Thormann trays and IMTP #40 Vertical tower with Montz-Thormann trays and IMTP #50
packing packing
H-3
Equipment Identification Pumps Compressors

Number G-81 G-82 G-83 K-100 K-101 K-102
Semilean Amine Lean Amine Pump Stripper Reflux CO2 Product CO2 Product CO2 Product
Name
Pump Pump Compressor 1 Compressor 2 Compressor 3
Stream Number 78 84 93 37 37D 37H
Process CO2 to CO2 CO2 to CO2
Semilean Amine CO2 to CO2
Lean Amine to HP Condensate to Product Product
Name from LP Flash Product Compressor
Lean Amine Pump Stripper Reflux Compressor Stage Compressor Stage
Stripper Stage 1
Pump 2 3
Process Orientation
Phase Liquid Liquid Liquid Vapour Vapour Vapour
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 76 87 44 44 43 43
Out 76 88 45 150 150 150
Pressure (kPa) In 222 140 120 120 359 1094
Out 740 4300 600 359 1094 3291
3
Volumetric (m /h) 523 588 3 28115 8761 2726
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1056 1000 990 2 6 19
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Ave. Viscosity (mPa.s) 1.31E-06 9.56E-07 6.18E-07 1.59E-08 1.60E-08 1.62E-08
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Stream Number
Name
Process Orientation
Phase
Residence Time (s)
Out
Pressure (kPa) In
Out
Flow Rate Mass (kg/h)
Volumetric (m3/h)
3
Ave. Density (kg/m )
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Ave. Viscosity (mPa.s)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%) 67.5 59.4 36.0 80 80 80
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size
Length or height, L (m)
Volume, V (m3)
Shaft Power, ws (kW) 111.5 1143.4 1.1 1487.8 1414.6 1324.6
Material of Construction SS 316L SS 316L SS 304L SS 316L SS 316L SS 316L
H-4
2. Detailed Equipment List – 112 % Case

Number E-80 E-81A/B/C E-82 E-83 E-84
CO2 Absorber Lean/Rich Amine Stripper Reboiler Stripper Overhead Lean Amine Air
Name
Overhead Cooler Exchanger Condenser Cooler
Semilean Amine to Lean Amine from
Name L/R Amine HP Lean Amine
Exchanger Pump
Process Orientation Shell-Side Cold Side Shell-Side Shell-Side Hot Side
Phase Vapour Liquid Liquid In, Vapour Out Vapour Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 55 77 114 65 84
Out 40 90 114 44 41
Pressure (kPa) In 3376 740 151 141 4300
Out 3350 145 151 125 4200
3
Volumetric (m /h) 6470 586 611 30704 595
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 6 1060 979 2 1004
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 5.93 3.70 4.23 0.97 4.06
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -3934 -10731 -10447 -9265 -10568
Out -4049 -10608 -12838 -9404 -10736
Stream Number CWS1 83 CWS2
Lean Amine from

Name Cooling Water LP Steam Cooling Water Air
LP Flash Stripper
Process Orientation Tube-Side Hot Side Tube-Side Tube-Side Cold Side

Phase Liquid Liquid Vapour In, Liquid Out Liquid Vapour
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 24 114 156 24 17
Out 38 83 143 39 22
Pressure (kPa) In 601 151 400 601 101
Out 549 140 581 101
3
Volumetric (m /h) 79.53 611 138.48 5000.00
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 997 979 997
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 4.18 4.23 3.26 4.18 1.00
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -15858 -10447 -15858
Out -15801 -10575 -15797
2
(J/m s*K) 489 1532 965 267 795
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s) 332 21225 31600 2361 27838
LMTD (℃) 8.87 11.38 23.23 40.48
MTD (℃) 110
FT 0.85 1.00 287751.69 1.00 0.96
Δtm 7.54 11.38 31600000.00 23.23 38.86
Utilities
3
Cooling Water (m /h) 79.53 138.48
Equipment Size
Length or height, L (m) 8.049

2
Surface Area, A (m ) 85.8 1190.0 1150.0 381.7
3
Volume, V (m )
Material of Construction SS 304L/SS 316L SS 316L CS/SS 316L SS 316L CS
H-5

Name
Stream Number 74 75 36 37 27 28
CO2 to CO2
Name Product
Compressor
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 73 44 40
Out 875 120 3350
Volumetric (m3/h) 655 52 28947 30113 6195 6194
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1002 8 2 2 6 6
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Process
Condensate to
Stripper Reflux
Drum Drum
Pump
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 73 44 40
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 875 120 3350
Volumetric (m3/h) 603 3 0
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1089 990 992
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

3
Volume, V (m ) 75.4 14.8 5.7
H-6

Number C-80 C-82
Name
Stream Number 25 72 86 77 82 95
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 40 45 41 63 90 44
Out
Pressure (kPa) In 3426 3376 4200 143 145 141
Out
Volumetric (m3/h) 6993 2 580 8868 17948 3
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 14 990 1031 74 35 990
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Semilean Amine
Name from LP Flash
Stripper
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 55 73 76 114 65
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 3376 3450 241 151 141
Volumetric (m3/h) 6470 603 586 611 30704
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 6 1089 1060 979 2
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

Volume, V (m3) 177 443
packing packing
H-7

Number G-81 G-82 G-83 K-100 K-101 K-102
Name
Stripper Stage 1
Pump 2 3
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 76 83 44 44 43 43
Out 77 84 44 150 150 150
Pressure (kPa) In 241 140 120 120 361 1101
Out 740 4300 600 361 1101 3291
3
Volumetric (m /h) 586 595 3 30113 9357 2915
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1060 1004 990 2 6 19
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Stream Number
Name
Process Orientation
Phase
Residence Time (s)
Out
Pressure (kPa) In
Out
3
Volumetric (m /h)
Ave. Density (kg/m3)
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%) 67.5 59.4 36.0 80 80 80
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

Volume, V (m3)
Shaft Power, ws (kW) 120.4 1158.1 1.1 1606.5 1520.8 1415.8
H-8
3. Detailed Equipment List – 125 % Case

Number E-80 E-81A/B/C E-82 E-83 E-84 E-85
CO2 Absorber Lean/Rich Amine Stripper Reboiler Stripper Overhead Lean Amine Air Lean Amine
Name
Overhead Cooler Exchanger Condenser Cooler Cooler
Stream Number 26 81 83 35 85 86C
Semilean Amine to Lean Amine from Lean Amine to
Name L/R Amine HP Lean Amine Lean Amine
Exchanger Pump Cooler
Process Orientation Shell-Side Cold Side Shell-Side Shell-Side Hot Side Shell-Side
Phase Vapour Liquid Liquid In, Vapour Out Vapour Liquid Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 51 73 114 62 77 40
Out 39 90 114.4557111 41.5 40 34.7
Pressure (kPa) In 3376 740 156 141 4300 4200
Out 3350 146 156 125 4200 4200
3
Volumetric (m /h) 7171 606 629 33043 609 595
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 6 1070 979 2 1010 1033
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 5.94 3.64 4.23 0.96 4.02 3.84
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -3931 -10639 -10339 -9209 -10490 -10638
Out -4021 -10489 -12733 -9326 -10636 -10658
Stream Number CWS1 83 CWS2 CWS3
Lean Amine from

Name Cooling Water LP Steam Cooling Water Air Cooling Water
LP Flash Stripper
Process Orientation Tube-Side Hot Side Tube-Side Tube-Side Cold Side Tube-Side
Phase Liquid Liquid Vapour In, Liquid Out Liquid Vapour Liquid
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 24 114 156 24 17 24
Out 40 76 143 35.5 21.01806247 38
Pressure (kPa) In 601 156 400 601 101 601
Out 549 140 581 101 581
3
Volumetric (m /h) 59.82 629 164.55 5052.63 161.13
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 997 979 997 997
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K) 4.18 4.23 3.26 4.18 1.00 4.18
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In -15858 -10339 -15858 -15858
Out -15791 -10497 -15810 -15800
2
(J/m s*K) 489 1532 965 267 879 594
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s) 189 27059 31600 2190 24870 3467
LMTD (℃) 5.46 9.97 21.48 37.09 7.49
MTD (℃) 108.71
FT 0.95 1 1 1 0.96 0.955
Δtm 5.19 9.97 108.71 21.48 35.60 7.15
Utilities
3
Cooling Water (m /h) 59.82 164.55 161.13
Equipment Size

2
Surface Area, A (m ) 85.8 1785.0 1150.0 382.1 813.0
3
Volume, V (m )
Material of Construction SS 304L/SS 316L SS 316L CS/SS 316L SS 316L CS CS/SS 316L
H-9

Name
Stream Number 74 75 36 37 27 28
CO2 to CO2
Name Product
Compressor
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 69 41 39
Out 875 120 3350
3
Volumetric (m /h) 674 55 31848 33131 6938 6938
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1010 8 2 2 6 6
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Process
Condensate to
Stripper Reflux
Drum Drum
Pump
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 69 41 39
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 875 120 3350
Volumetric (m3/h) 620 3 0
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1099 991 992
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

3
Volume, V (m ) 75.4 36.8 9.7
H-10

Number C-80 C-82
Name
Stream Number 25 72 86 77 82 95
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 40 45 35 60 90 41
Out
Pressure (kPa) In 3426 3376 4200 143 146 141
Out
Volumetric (m3/h) 7851 2 594 9029 22348 2
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 14 990 1036 75 29 991
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Semilean Amine
Name from LP Flash
Stripper
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Out 51 69 73 114 62
Pressure (kPa) In
Out 3376 3465 246 156 141
3
Volumetric (m /h) 7171 619 606 629 33043
3
Ave. Density (kg/m ) 6 1099 1070 979 2
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%)
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

3
Volume, V (m ) 177 443
packing packing
H-11

Number G-81 G-82 G-83 K-100 K-101 K-102
Name
Stripper Stage 1
Pump 2 3
Process Orientation
Residence Time (s)
Temperature (℃) In 73 76 41 41 43 43
Out 73 77 41 150 150 147
Pressure (kPa) In 246 140 120 120 374 1134
Out 740 4300 600 374 1134 3291
Volumetric (m3/h) 606 609 3 33131 10158 3177
Ave. Density (kg/m3) 1070 1010 991 2 6 20
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
Stream Number
Name
Process Orientation
Phase
Residence Time (s)
Out
Pressure (kPa) In
Out
3
Volumetric (m /h)
Ave. Density (kg/m3)
Ave. Heat Capacity
(kJ/kg/K)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) In
Out
(J/m2s*K)
Efficiency (%) 67.5 59.4 36.0 80 80 80
Heating Duty (kJ/s)
LMTD (℃)
MTD (℃)
FT
Δtm
Utilities
Electricity (kW)
Equipment Size

3
Volume, V (m )
Shaft Power, ws (kW) 123.2 1184.8 1.0 1831.0 1699.6 1540.6
H-12
4. Heat Exchanger Sizing

4.1. Operating Data Provided
49-E-80: CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler
Type BEM
Orientation Horizontal
Nominal diameter per shell (mm) 800
Nominal length (straight tube length, mm) 3000
Gross exchange surface per unit (m2) 85.8
Exchanged heat 425 kW
Shell side Tube side
Medium Syngas Cooling water
Operating temperature (in/out, °C) 45/40 24/40
Operating pressure (in, kPag) 3275 500
Total mass flow (kg/h) 43246 22871
Liquid total (in/out, kg/h) 0/106 22871/22871
Vapor/gas total (in/out, kg/h) 43246/43140 0/0
Pressure drop (allowable/calculation, bar) 0.20/0.15 1.00/0.52
E-81A/B: Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger

Type CP
Nominal width (mm) 1963
Nominal length (mm) 1963
Nominal height (mm) 2516
2
Actual exchange surface per unit (m ) 595
Total heat flow (MW) 22 (with 10% overdesign margin)
Hot Side Cold Side
Medium Lean amine Semilean amine
Operating temperature (in/out, °C) 114.0/83.4 73.4/103.4
Pressure drop (allowable/calculation, kPa) 30.0/29.90 35.0/33.20
E-83: Stripper Overhead Condenser

Type BJ21M
Nominal length (straight tube length) 5486
H-13
Gross exchange surface per unit (m2) 381.72

Exchanged heat 2.70 MW (with 20% overdesign margin)
Shell Side Tube Side
Medium Carbon Dioxide Cooling water supply
Operating temperature (in/out, °C) 65.6/45 24/40
Vapor/gas total (in/out, kg/h) 66160.4/62637 0/0
Pressure drop (allowable/calculation, kPa) 10/3.1 40/20
Velocity (m/s) 8.17 0.75
E-84: Lean Amine Cooler

Type draft Forced
Tube length (mm) 8049
Heat exchanged per unit (MW) 27.6 (with 15% overdesign margin)
Medium Lean amine
Operating temperature (in/out, °C) 83.44/45
Operating pressure (in, kPag) 4280
Total mass flow (kg/h) 670941
Liquid total (in/out) 670941/670941
Gas total (in/out) 0/0
Pressure drop allowable (kPa) 120
4.2. Design Data Sheet Provided

E-82: Stripper Reboiler
Type BKU
Nominal length (straight tube length) 6096
Gross exchange surface per unit (m2) 1150
Exchanged heat 31.6 MW (with 10% overdesign margin)
Shell Side Tube Side
Medium Lean Solution LP Steam
Operating temperature (in/out, °C) 114/114 156/143
Pressure drop (allowable/calculation, kPa) 0/0.95 0/11.27
Velocity (m/s) 15.23 14.88
H-14
4.3. Heat Exchanger Sizing Sample Calculations

The heat transfer equation is solved for the additional lean amine cooler, E-85. The cold
fluid is cooling water and the hot fluid is lean amine. Based on the inlet and outlet stream
temperatures tabulated below, R and S were calculated, and a correction factor FT was obtained to
be applied to LMTD. An overall heat transfer coefficient was obtained for the specific fluids
present in the heat exchanger. Using the heat exchanger duty from the simulation output, Q, the
total heat exchange surface, A, was obtained.
E-85 Lean Amine Exchanger

Cooling Water In, t1 K 297.15
Lean Amine In, T1 K 313.15
Cooling Water Out, t2 K 308.15
Lean Amine Out, T2 K 307.85
LMTD K 7.49
S - 0.69
R - 0.48
Correction Factor, FT - 0.96
Duty, Q W 3467278
2
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, U W/m /K 594.30
2
Area, A m 815.40
𝑄 = 𝑈𝐴 × 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 × 𝐹𝑇
(𝑇1 − 𝑡2 ) − (𝑇2 − 𝑡1 ) (313.15 𝐾 − 308.15 𝐾) − (307.85 𝐾 − 297.15 𝐾)

𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 = = = 7.5 𝐾
(𝑇1 − 𝑡2 ) (313.15 𝐾 − 308.15 𝐾)
𝑙𝑛 𝑙𝑛
(𝑇2 − 𝑡1 ) (307.85 𝐾 − 297.15 𝐾)
𝑇1 − 𝑇2 313.15 𝐾 − 307.15 𝐾
𝑅= = = 0.48
𝑡2 − 𝑡1 308.15 𝐾 − 297.15 𝐾
𝑡2 − 𝑡1 308.15 𝐾 − 297.15 𝐾
𝑆= = = 0.69
𝑇1 − 𝑡1 313.15 𝐾 − 297.15 𝐾
H-15
Using Kern (1950), the correction factor for a 2-4 shell and tube heat exchanger is 0.96.
Therefore, the total area of the heat exchanger is
𝑄 3467278 W
𝐴= = = 815.4 𝑚2
𝑈 × 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 × 𝐹𝑇 594.3 𝑊 × 7.5 𝐾 × 0.96
𝑚2 𝐾
The procedure shown above was used for calculating the size of all heat exchangers present in
the design. Note that for the Lean Amine Air Cooler, the fan power required to facilitate the
required flow rate for the base case was taken as the benchmark. Additional power required for
the 112 % case and 125 % case were costed accounted for in the operating costs.
4.4. Base Case Sizes

E-80 CO2 Absorber Overhead Cooler
Tube Side Fluid In, t1 K 297.15
Shell Side Fluid In, T1 K 318.15
Tube Side Fluid Out, t2 K 313.15
Shell Side Fluid Out, T2 K 313.15
LMTD K 9.46
S - 0.76
R - 0.31
Duty, Q W 349220
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, U W/m2/K 489.11
2
Area, A m 88.82
E-81 Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger

LMTD K 9.94
S - 0.75
R - 0.97
H-16
Duty, Q W 18148961
2
2
Area, A m 1191.57
E-82 Stripper Reboiler

Average Temperature Difference K 108.71
31600000
Duty, Q W
Area, A m2 301.14
E-83 Stripper Overhead Condenser

LMTD K 23.54
S - 0.38
R - 1.33
Duty, Q W 2362061
Area, A m2 376.18
E-84 Lean Amine Air Cooler

Air Side Fluid In, T1 K 360.97
Air Side Fluid Out, T2 K 318.15
LMTD K 42.31
S - 0.60
R - 0.23
Duty, Q W 27838271
2
H-17
Area, A m2 862.15
4.5. 112 % Case Sizes

Since the 112 % capacity case is an optimization of the existing base case equipment through
modification of operating conditions, the size of the equipment remain the same with little
variation from the base case.

LMTD K 8.87
S - 0.79
R - 0.27
Duty, Q W 331900
2
2
Area, A m 90.03

LMTD K 11.38
S - 0.50
R - 1.67
Correction Factor, FT - 1
Duty, Q W 21224849
Area, A m2 1217.59

H-18

31600000
Duty, Q W
Area, A m2 298.09

LMTD K 23.23
S - 0.36
R - 1.41
Duty, Q W 2361493
Area, A m2 380.99

LMTD K 40.48
S - 0.63
R - 0.11
Duty, Q W 27838271
2
2
Area, A m 901.18

H-19

LMTD K 5.46
S - 0.93
R - 0.14
Duty, Q W 188750
Area, A m2 74.39

LMTD K 9.97
S - 0.93
R - 0.47
Correction Factor, FT - 1
Duty, Q W 27044854
2
2
Area, A m 1772.16

31600000
Duty, Q W
Area, A m2 301.14

H-20
LMTD K 21.48
S - 0.53
R - 0.57
Duty, Q W 2189579
Area, A m2 382.14

LMTD K 37.09
S - 0.62
R - 0.11
Duty, Q W 24869695
2
2
Area, A m 878.65
E-85 Lean Amine Exchanger

Cooling Water In, t1 K 297.15
Lean Amine In, T1 K 313.15
Cooling Water Out, t2 K 308.15
Lean Amine Out, T2 K 307.85
LMTD K 7.49
S - 0.69
R - 0.48
Duty, Q W 3467278
2
2
Area, A m 815.41
5. Vessel Sizing
H-21

C-81: HP Amine Flash Drum
Orientation Vertical
3
Volume (m ) 75
Inner Diameter (mm) 2200
Length (mm) 19840
Medium Rich Amine/Flash Gas
Operating Temperature (max °C) 75
Operating Pressure (max kPag) 600
Material CS/SS 316L
C-83: Reflux Vessel

Volume (m3) 14.8
Length (mm) 3890
Medium CO2 Gas/Process Condensate
Material SS 304L
C-87: Absorber Overhead K.O Drum

3
Volume (m ) 55.4
Length (mm) 3690
Medium Synthesis Gas/Process Condensate
Material CS
3
Note: The volume was corrected to 5.68 m based on the diameter and length given.
5.2. Separator Sizing Sample Calculations

For the separators mentioned above, the terminal velocity and the resulting minimum diameter
and length of the vessel are calculated using two sizing guidelines:
i) Gravity Settling Theory approach outlined in GPSA (2014)
ii) Souders-Brown approach presented by PetroSkills (2015)
H-22
The most conservative dimensions resulting from these methods were taken as the separator size.
The following parameters have been defined for the Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum C-87:
C-87 Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum

Temperature, T °C 40
Pressure, P kPa(g) 3249
Droplet Diameter, Dp µm 500
Liquid Density, ρL kg/m3 991.4260102
Vapour Density, ρV kg/m3 6.076971649
Liquid Viscosity, µL Pa*s 0.000671697
Vapour Viscosity, µV Pa*s 1.18861E-05
Inlet Liquid Flow, QL m3/s 0.000105874
Inlet Vapour Flow, QV m3/s 1.5381639
Material - CS
L/D Ratio - 3
Demister Height, hD m 0.15
Residence Time, t s 300
In GPSA Section 7: Separation Equipment, particle diameter size for gravity settling chambers
range from 5 to 10,000 µm. A value of 500 µm was assumed for the separators. It was also stated
that the length to diameter ratio (L:D) for vertical separators is typically 2 to 4; a value of 3 was
used for calculations. Demisters will add 0.15 m to the total height and diameter of the
separators. A residence time of 5 minutes will be used to determine liquid holdup capacity. An
overdesign factor of 25% will be considered for the flow rate.
Gravity Settling Theory
In the following equations, the subscript c denotes the continuous phase. With vapour as the
continuous phase and liquid as the dispersed or discontinuous phase, the terminal velocity was
calculated based on the Reynolds number, Re, range:
For Re < 2
H-23
𝑚 −6 2 𝑘𝑔
1000𝑔𝐷𝑝 2 (𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑉 ) 1000(9.81 𝑠 2 )(500 ∙ 10 𝑚) (991.4 − 6.07 𝑚3 ) 𝑚
𝑉𝑡 = = −2
= 11.3
18𝜇𝐶 18(1.19 ∙ 10 𝑚𝑃𝑎 ∙ 𝑠) 𝑠
𝑘𝑔 −6 𝑚
1000𝜌𝑉 𝐷𝑝 𝑉𝑡 1000 (6.07 𝑚3 ) (500 ∙ 10 𝑚) (11.3 𝑠 )
𝑅𝑒 = = = 2882
𝜇𝐶 1.19 ∙ 10−2 𝑚𝑃𝑎 ∙ 𝑠
Since the Re value calculated is not within the stated range, this terminal velocity cannot be used.
For 2 < Re < 500
2.94𝑔0.71 𝐷𝑝 1.14 (𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑉 )0.71

𝑉𝑡 =
𝜌𝑉 0.29 𝜇𝑉 0.43
𝑚 0.71 𝑘𝑔
2.94(9.81 2 ) (500 ∙ 10−6 𝑚)1.14 (991.4 − 6.07 3 )0.71 𝑚
= 𝑠 𝑚 = 1.37
𝑘𝑔 𝑠
(6.07 3 )0.29 (1.19 ∙ 10−2 𝑚𝑃𝑎 ∙ 𝑠)0.43
𝑚
𝑘𝑔 −6 𝑚
1000𝜌𝑉 𝐷𝑝 𝑉𝑡 1000 (6.07 𝑚3 ) (500 ∙ 10 𝑚) (1.37 𝑠 )
𝑅𝑒 = = = 349
𝜇𝐶 1.19 ∙ 10−2 𝑚𝑃𝑎 ∙ 𝑠
Since the calculated Re is within the specified range, use this velocity for the next calculation. If
this was not the case, the final terminal velocity formula below could have been used for higher
Re values.
For 500 < Re < 200,000
𝑔𝐷𝑝 (𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑉 )
𝑉𝑡 = 1.74√
𝜌𝑉
H-24
Assuming the droplets are spherical, the Re is used to obtain a drag coefficient CD and a terminal
velocity is recalculated. Iterations, i, are done until the velocities are within 5% of the last
iteration.
𝑚 𝑘𝑔
4𝑔𝐷𝑝 (𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑉 ) 4(9.81 2 )(500 ∙ 10−6 𝑚)(991.4 − 6.07 3 )
𝑉𝑡,𝑖 = √ =√ 𝑠 𝑚 = 1.45 𝑚
3𝜌𝑉 𝐶𝐷 𝑘𝑔 𝑠
3(6.07 3 )(0.5)
𝑚
The corresponding diameter is:
𝑄𝑉 4𝑄𝑉
𝑉𝑡 = =
𝐴 𝜋𝐷2
𝑚3
4(125 % × 1.538
𝐷=√
4𝑄𝑉
=√ 𝑠 ) = 1.3 𝑚
𝜋𝑉𝑡 𝑚
𝜋(1.45 𝑠 )
𝐿 = 3𝐷 = 3(1.3 𝑚) = 3.9 𝑚
With the demister, the separator dimensions are
Separator Dimensions with Demister

Diameter, D m 1.4
Length, L m 4.0
Volume, V m3 6.2
The same procedure is repeated but with liquid as the continuous phase and vapour as the
dispersed phase. The more conservative dimensions will be taken as the size of the separator. In
this case, the dimensions above are more conservative since the liquid flow into the vessel is not
as large as the vapour phase. Note that the diameter above agrees with the actual diameter of the
H-25
existing C-87 provided by the client. The length is slightly higher but this is acceptable since we
are using a conservative L/D ratio.
Souders-Brown
The maximum gas velocity is
𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑉
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐾𝑆 √
𝜌𝑉
PetroSkills | John M. Campbell (2015) provided a correlation for the design parameter KS of 500
micron droplets as a function of pressure. Correlation for the lower curve is used to get a
conservative value. At a pressure of 3350 kPa (a), the correlation is
𝐾𝑆 = 0.1225 + 0 × 𝑃 = 0.1225
The deration factor due to the mesh pad was determined to be 80% of the design parameter.
𝑘𝑔
991.4 − 6.07
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (0.1225 × 80%)√ 𝑚3 = 1.25 𝑚
𝑘𝑔 𝑠
6.07 3
𝑚
The minimum diameter is
𝑚3
4𝑄𝑉 4(1.538 𝑠 )
𝐷=√ =√ 𝑚 = 1.25 𝑚
𝜋𝐹𝐺 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜋(1)(1.25 𝑠 )
Where FG is the fraction of cross section area available for gas flow which has a value of 1 for
vertical separators.
H-26
Typically, a disengagement height of 1 m is added to the liquid holdup height hL required and the
demister pad height. The liquid holdup volume VL for the 5 minute residence time is:
𝑚3
𝑉𝐿 = 125 %𝑄𝐿 𝑡 = 125 % × 0.0001 × 300𝑠 = 0.0397 𝑚3
𝑠
4𝑉𝐿 4(0.0397 𝑚3 )
ℎ𝐿 = = = 0.0323 𝑚
𝜋𝐷2 𝜋(1.25 𝑚)2
𝐿 = ℎ𝐿 + 1.0 𝑚 + 0.15 𝑚 = 1.2 𝑚
From this approach, the separator dimensions are:

Diameter, D m 1.3
Length, L m 1.2
Volume, V m3 1.5
Final Dimensions
The most conservative dimensions from the two methods used to size equipment C-87 are used.

Diameter, D m 1.4
Length, L m 4.0
Volume, V m3 6.2
This agrees with the provided dimensions and validates the sizing procedure used going forward.
Again, the volume is slightly higher than the existing value, but this is due to the conservative
value of L/D being used.
H-27
5.3. Base Case Sizes

3
Volume (m ) 66.3
Length (mm) 17400
Material CS/SS 316L
Note: Minimum diameter obtained was 140 mm. The existing diameter was taken, and length
was sized to be able to handle liquid holdup capacity with the disengagement height.
C-83: Reflux Vessel

3
Volume (m ) 4.6
Length (mm) 1200
Material SS 304L
Note: Length calculated was 1200 mm considering liquid capacity and disengagement height.
However, this gives L/D=0.55 which is not ideal. In reality, a ratio between 2 to 4 is preferred.
The existing vessel length is acceptable at 3890 mm.

3
Volume (m ) 1.6
Length (mm) 1200
Material CS
Note: Similar comment on the length as above. The L/D is 0.92 which is not ideal. In reality, a
ratio between 2 to 4 is preferred. The existing vessel length is acceptable at 3690 mm.
H-28

Since the 112 % capacity case is an optimization of the existing base case equipment through
modification of operating conditions, the size of the equipment remain the same with little
variation from the base case.

Volume (m3) 67.2
Length (mm) 17700
Material CS/SS 316L
C-83: Reflux Vessel

Volume (m3) 5.0
Length (mm) 1200
Material SS 304L
Note: Similar to the base case, length calculated was 1200 mm which gives L/D=0.55. In reality,
a ratio between 2 to 4 is preferred. The existing vessel length is acceptable at 3890 mm.

3
Volume (m ) 1.4
Length (mm) 1200
H-29
Material CS
Note: Similar comment on the length as above. The L/D is 1. Ideally, a ratio between 2 to 4 is
preferred. The existing vessel length is acceptable at 3690 mm.

Volume (m3) 68.9
Length (mm) 18100
Material CS/SS 316L
C-83: Reflux Vessel

Volume (m3) 5.9
Length (mm) 1200
Material SS 304L
Note: There is an increase in diameter therefore a new vessel will be required. The diameter has
been sized using 25% overdesign factor on flow rate. Although the minimum calculated length is
1200 mm, the actual length will be a conservative estimate using an L/D of 3. The actual length
of the vessel will be 7500 mm.

Volume (m3) 1.5
Length (mm) 1200
H-30

Material CS
Note: Similar comment on the length as above. The L/D is 1. Ideally, a ratio between 2 to 4 is
preferred. The existing vessel length is acceptable at 3690 mm.
6. Column Sizing
Detailed calculations on the CO2 Absorber and LP Flash Stripper can be found in
Appendix D Separation Calculations. To keep the diameter of the columns the same, resultant
pressure drop from the operational and equipment changes was calculated and applied to the
simulation. The diameters are then reverified using the simulation output pressure drop and flow
rates using the Eckert generalized pressure drop correlation (GPDC). The diameters were
verified to be the same across the base, 112 %, and 125 % case.
H-31

6.1.1. CO2 Absorber (C-80)
H-32
H-33
H-34
6.1.2. LP Flash Stripper (C-82)
H-35
H-36
H-37
H-38
7. Pump Sizing
G-81A/B: Semilean Amine Pump
Type Centrifugal
Medium Lean amine
Operating temperature (°C) 73
3
Volumetric flow rate Q (m /h):
Maximum (rated Qmax) 720
Normal 655
Minimum (Qmin) 197
Suction pressure (kPag)
Minimum (rated Qmax) 329
Maximum 703
Discharge pressure (kPag)
Rated @ Qmax 662
Maximum shut off 1100
Differential pressure @ Qmax (kPa) 333
Differential head @ Qmax (m) 32.1
Plant NPSH available (m) 28
Material SS 316L
Speed estimated (rpm) 1775
Power estimated (kW) 89
Estimated hydraulic efficiency (%) 75
G-82 A/B/C: HP Lean Amine Pump

Type Centrifugal
Medium Lean amine
3
Normal 392
Minimum (Qmin) 117
Minimum (rated Qmax) 39
Maximum 508
Rated @ Qmax 4199
Differential head @ Qmax (m) 426
H-39

Plant NPSH available (m) 9.1
Material SS 316L
Power estimated (kW) 546
G-83 A/B: Stripper Reflux Pump

Type Centrifugal
Medium Process condensate
3
Maximum (rated Qmax) 8.0 plus min. flow required
Normal 3.9
Minimum (Qmin) 1.2
Minimum (rated Qmax) 49.0
Maximum 397
Rated @ Qmax 776
Differential head @ Qmax (m) 74.8
Plant NPSH available (m) 3
Material SS 304L
Power estimated (kW) 6.2
7.2. Base Case
The overall pump efficiency was estimated to be 90 % of the hydraulic efficiency provided for
each pump.

Type Centrifugal
Volumetric flow rate Q (m3/h): 522.9
Minimum (Qmin) 197
Suction pressure (kPag) 121
Minimum 329
Maximum 703
H-40
Discharge pressure (kPag) 639

Rated @ Qmax 662
Differential pressure (kPa) 518
Total Dynamic Head (m) 50.1
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 111.5
Overall pump efficiency (%) 67.5
Note: Suction pressure given in design basis is 44 kPag. The discharge pressure is also given at
639 kPag.

Type Centrifugal
Minimum (Qmin) 117
Minimum 39
Maximum 508
Rated @ Qmax 4199
Total Dynamic Head (m) 424
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 1143
Note: The volumetric flow in the design basis is 585 m3/h.

Type Centrifugal
3
Volumetric flow rate Q (m /h): 3.1
Minimum (Qmin) 1.2
Maximum 397
Rated @ Qmax 776
H-41

Material SS 304L
Power (kW) 1.15
Overall pump efficiency (%) 36
Note: Suction pressure given at 19 kPag in the design basis. Discharge pressure is also given at
499 kPag.
7.1. Pump Sizing Methodology

When comparing the simulated results for the 112 % and 125 % redesign cases with the base
case and operating data provided, it was found that all pump operating conditions remained well
within allowable limits. No additional pumps were required for the 112 % or 125 % capacity
redesign cases. The simulated pump operating conditions for the redesigns are shown in the
subsequent sections.
7.2. 112 % Case

Type Centrifugal
Minimum (Qmin) 197
Suction pressure (kPag) 139.6
Minimum 329
Maximum 703
Rated @ Qmax 662
Differential pressure (kPa) 499.4
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 120.4
639 kPag.
H-42

Type Centrifugal
3
Minimum (Qmin) 117
Minimum 39
Maximum 508
Rated @ Qmax 4199
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 1158

Type Centrifugal
Minimum (Qmin) 1.2
Maximum 397
Rated @ Qmax 776
Material SS 304L
Power (kW) 1.14
499 kPag.
H-43
7.3. 125 % Case

Type Centrifugal
3
Minimum (Qmin) 197
Minimum 329
Maximum 703
Rated @ Qmax 662
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 123.1
639 kPag.

Type Centrifugal
3
Volumetric flow rate Q (m /h): 609
Minimum (Qmin) 117
Minimum 39
Maximum 508
Rated @ Qmax 4199
Total Dynamic Head (m) 410
Material SS 316L
Power (kW) 1156
H-44

Type Centrifugal
3
Minimum (Qmin) 1.2
Maximum 397
Rated @ Qmax 776
Material SS 304L
Power (kW) 1.03
499 kPag.
8. Process Lines Sizing

8.1. Methodology
The size of the main process lines in the existing plant were not provided by the client.
To identify process lines sizes that are representative of what is already in place in the existing
CO2 Recovery Facility, the lines were sized using properties and flow rates given by the client
material balance specifications. Various sizing techniques were utilized, including simulation
using VMGSim, rules of thumb provided in previous Chemical Engineering Courses at the
University of Alberta (U of A), and utilizing standard sizing charts. To select a nominal pipe size
calculated based on the three different techniques, economical fluid velocities, pressure drops,
pump suction line maximum recommended velocities, and guidelines for minimizing corrosion
in amine units were considered. Pipe Schedules were then calculated using the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code B31.3 for Pressure Piping (1).
H-45
The internal diameter of the pipe was then determined based on the pipe thickness
required by ASME B31.3. If this internal diameter provided flow that was outside of
recommended ranges for velocity or pressure drop, the process was iterated again with a
different pipe size. The details of the sizing process for the different types of flow are provided
below. Sample calculations for the sizing process are given in Section 5.2. Conversion factors
between different units were obtained from Ulrich and Vasudevan (2).
8.1.1. Single Phase Vapour Flow

The economical pipe diameter for the vapour streams was taken from Perry’s Chemical
Engineering Handbook, Seventh Edition (3). An economic optimum velocity for gases with
densities ranging from 0.2 to 20 kg/m3 was reported to be 40 m/s to 9 m/s. All vapour streams
using design basis and simulated information fell within this specified density.
The recommended maximum allowable velocity for the vapour streams were also
considered based on the calculated sonic velocity of the gas (4). The velocity of the vapour
should remain less than 0.1 times the sonic velocity of the vapour, which is given by:
𝑉𝑠 = √𝑘𝑃/𝜌
The ratio of specific heats, k, for each component was obtained from Engineering Toolbox (5).
The maximum friction loss in the pipe in kPa/100m was determined by linear interpolation of the
information provided by Church (6).
8.1.2. Single Phase Liquid Flow

The economical pipe diameter for liquid streams was taken to be 3.3 – 10 ft/s (1.01 – 3.05
m/s) based on the Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design (7). The allowable pressure
drop for low viscosity liquids was also taken from the Kolmetz Handbook, with a value of 2.2
H-46
psi/100ft (49.77 kPa/100m). To increase the NPSHa to avoid cavitation in pump suction lines, a
maximum velocity of 5ft/s (1.52m/s) was chosen (7) (8). The recommended velocity through
carbon steel pipes is also recommended to be below 1.8 m/s for MDEA units (9). This was taken
into consideration as well during the line sizing process.
8.1.3. Two Phase Flow

For two-phase flow, the minimum and maximum velocity of the fluids were determined
by guidelines given by Church, and distributed or segregated flow was targeted wherever
possible to avoid intermittent flow (6). The flow regime was determined from Empirical flow
regime maps and figures provided by the presentation by Church.
8.2. Sample Calculations

8.2.1. Single Phase Flow
A sample calculation for a vapour line (Stream 25) is provided in this section. Relevant
parameters from the design basis for stream 25 are provided in the table below.
Stream Number 25
Description SG to CO2 Absorber
Phase Vapor
Vapour fraction 100
Temperature (K) 313.15
Pressure (kPa(g)) 3325.00
Volumetric Flow Rate (m3/s) 1.76
Eff Density (kg/m3) 13.65
Viscosity (Pa s) 1.40E-05
Component mol/mol
CO 0.03
CO2 0.17
H2 0.76
H2O 0.00
CH4 0.04
N2 0.00
H-47
O2 0.00
aMDEA 0.00
MDEA 0.00
PZ 0.00
The ratio of specific heats was calculated by multiplying each component’s k value with their
molar fraction.
𝑘 = (0.033 ∗ 1.4 + 0.166 ∗ 1.28 + 0.756 ∗ 1.41 + 0.002 ∗ 1.33 + 0.042 ∗ 1.32 + 0.001 ∗ 1.4) = 1.38414
The sonic velocity of the gas was then calculated as:
1000𝑃𝑎 1 𝑚3
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.1 ∗ 𝑉𝑠 = 0.1 ∗ √1.38414 ∗ (3325 𝑘𝑃𝑎 + 101.325 𝑘𝑃𝑎) ∗ ∗
1 𝑘𝑃𝑎 13.65 𝑘𝑔
𝑉𝑠 = 58.94 𝑚/𝑠
Allowable pressure drop was interpolated from Church (6):
32 − 18
𝛥𝑃 = 18 + (3325 − 1500) = 30.78 𝑘𝑃𝑎/100𝑚
3500 − 1500
The rule of thumb velocity was calculated from Pick (4):
𝑉 = √3300/𝜌𝑚 = √3300/13.65 = 15.55𝑚/𝑠
Using this velocity and the volumetric flow rate provided in the design basis:
4Q 4 ∗ 1.76 m3 /𝑠
𝐷=√ =√ = 0.38 𝑚
πV π ∗ 15.55 m/s
1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
𝐷 = 0.38𝑚 ∗ = 14.94 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠
0.0254 𝑚
H-48
The velocity obtained from inputting the design basis information and assuming commercial
steel pipe with a roughness of 0.0045 cm gave an estimated pipe diameter of 27.34 cm, which is
equal to 10.68 inches (10).
Approximating the inside pipe diameter as the nominal pipe diameter for convenience,
the calculated nominal pipe sizes were 12.00 inches and 16.00 inches, which had some
discrepancy. The velocity of the fluids using these diameters was then calculated.
𝑚3
4𝑄 4 ∗ 1.76 𝑠 𝑚
𝑉𝐷=12.00𝑖𝑛 = 2= = 24.09
πD 0.0254 𝑚 2 𝑠
π ∗ (12.00 inches ∗ )
1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
Similarly, VD=14.00in = 17.70 m/s and VD=16.00in = 13.55 m/s. All of these calculated velocities
were within the range of allowable vapour velocities.
Next, the pressure drop for each calculated pipe size was determined.
𝑘𝑔 𝑚 0.0254 𝑚
𝜌𝑉𝐷 13.65 𝑚3 ∗ 24.09 𝑠 ∗ 12.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 ∗ 1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
𝑅𝑒𝐷=12.00𝑖𝑛 = = = 7.16 ∗ 106
µ 1.4 ∗ 10−5 𝑃𝑎 ∗ 𝑠
Similarly, ReD=14.00in = 6.14*106 and ReD=16.00in = 5.37*106. The equivalent roughness was taken
as 0.0045 cm from Munson et. al (10). Thus,
𝜀 0.0045 𝑐𝑚
= = 0.00015
𝐷𝐷=12.00𝑖𝑛 12.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 ∗ 2.54𝑐𝑚
1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
The Moody friction factor was then taken from a Moody chart to be 0.013 (10). Similarly, the
14.00 inch pipe diameter had an ε/D of 0.00013 and a friction factor of 0.0125, and the 16.00
inch pipe had an ε/D of 0.00011 and a friction factor of 0.0125.
H-49
The pressure drop along the pipe length was then calculated:
𝑘𝑔 𝑚 2
13.65 ∗ 0.013 ∗ 100𝑚 ∗ (24.09 𝑠 ) 1 𝑘𝑃𝑎
2
𝛥𝑃 𝜌𝑓𝑚 𝐿𝑉 𝑚3
= = = 16.89 𝑘𝑃𝑎
100𝑚 2𝐷 0.0254 𝑚 1000 𝑃𝑎
2 ∗ 12.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 ∗
1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
The pressure drop for the 14.00 inch and 16.00 inch diameter pipes were calculated to be 7.51
kPa/100m and 3.85 kPa/100m, respectively.
The summary of these calculations are shown in the table below:
Pipe Diameter Velocity Reynold’s ε/D fm Pressure Drop

(inches) (m/s) Number (kPa/100m)
12.00 24.09 7.16*106 0.00015 0.013 16.89
14.00 17.70 6.14*106 0.00013 0.0125 7.51
16.00 13.55 5.37*106 0.00011 0.0125 3.85
Since the maximum allowable pressure drop is 30.78 kPa/100m, a nominal pipe size of
12.00 inches was selected. If the inside diameter changed significantly after the pipe thickness
was calculated, the process was repeated again with a new nominal diameter and calculated
inside diameter to verify that the pressure drop and velocities were within allowable ranges.
For process line sizing for vapours, the chart technique for process lines sizing taken
from McDonald et. al was not used, as the chart is applicable only for air with a relatively low
flow rate (11). However, the chart method was used for liquid streams, using the calculated
allowable pressure drop in ft.H2O/100ft and volumetric flow rate in U.S gallons per minute. The
pipe sizes were rounded up to be conservative.
After the line sizing process was completed for the design case, the entire process was
repeated for the base simulation case to verify the accuracy of the simulated results. This was
H-50
done because the simulation provided stream properties that were slightly different than the
design basis. If the line sizing for the base case and design case agreed, that would be reasonable
indication that the predicted fluid velocities and flow regimes for the 112 % and 125 % redesign
cases would be realistic.
8.2.2. Two-Phase Flow

Two-phase flow pipes were sized based on the method outlined by Church (6). For
stream 38, the design basis information is as follows:
Stream Number 38
Description CO2 to Dehydration Unit
Phase Mixed
Vapour fraction 98.5
Temperature (K) 307.15
Pressure (kPa(g)) 3190.00
Volumetric Flow Rate (m3/s) 0.21
Eff Density (kg/m3) 68.16
Viscosity (Pa s) 0.00
Component mol/mol
CO 0.00
CO2 0.98
H2 0.00
H2O 0.02
CH4 0.00
N2 0.00
O2 0.00
aMDEA 0.00
MDEA 0.00
PZ 0.00
The vapour fraction was 0.9850 which corresponds to a liquid fraction of 0.0150. The
Froude number was calculated using the maximum and minimum allowable velocities, which
were calculated as follows:
H-51
122 122
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 14.78 𝑚/𝑠
√𝜌𝑚 √68.16 𝑘𝑔3
𝑚
73 122
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = = 8.84 𝑚/𝑠
√𝜌𝑚 √68.16 𝑘𝑔3
𝑚
The diameters that correspond to those maximum and minimum velocities were calculated as:
0.21 m3
4Q 4∗ 1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 =√ =√ 𝑠 = 0.136𝑚 ∗ = 5.35 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠
πV𝑚𝑎𝑥 m 0.0254 𝑚
π ∗ 14.78 s
Rounding up, the minimum pipe diameter for stream 38 is 6.00 inches. Similarly, the maximum pipe
diameter was calculated to be 6.92 inches. Rounding down from this maximum, the pipe diameter was
chosen to be 6.00 inches.
𝑚
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 14.78 𝑠
𝐹𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 9.6156
√𝑔 ∗ 𝐷 √9.81 𝑚2 ∗ 6.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 ∗ 0.0254 𝑚
𝑠 1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
Using the charts provided by Church’s presentation, the flow regime for stream 38 was
determined to be segregated flow.
If the two-phase flow analysis provided different minimum and maximum pipe
diameters, the flow regime for each of those intermediate pipe diameters was calculated to
ensure distributed or segregated flow could be achieved. If multiple pipe diameters could achieve
non-intermittent flow, then the pipe diameter that allowed the highest velocity within the
allowable ranges was specified.
H-52
For Stream 36 it was determined that intermittent flow was unavoidable. For this stream,
lines should be constructed with a slight decline to ensure liquid moves through the pipe without
plug or slug flow. Other streams 27 and 74 were identified as two-phase flow in the design basis,
however the simulated results suggested the streams were single phases flow. The vapour
fraction for the design basis was thus used for these streams to approximate the vapour fraction
of the simulated cases to determine the type of two-phase flow regime that could be expected.
8.2.3. Pipe Thickness

The thickness of pipe was then determined from the method outlined in ASME B31.3
according to (1):
𝑃𝐷
𝑡=
2(𝑆𝐸𝑊 + 𝑃𝑌)
The design pressure of the stream was based on design pressures specified in existing
equipment data sheets provided by CNRL for the CO2 absorber and LP Flash Stripper. The
design pressure of other streams were calculated as the highest pressure that the stream could
experience based on adjacent streams, or taken as the minimum between the operating pressure +
200 kPa or the operating pressure *1.1. The minimum design temperature was taken to be 65 °C
for streams below operating temperatures of 65 °C. The maximum design temperature was taken
to be the operating temperature rounded to the nearest 50°C.
S, E, W, and Y were taken from tables within ASME B31.3. The outside diameters of
each nominal pipe size was determined from standard carbon steel and stainless steel pipe sizes
and thicknesses based on ASME B36.10M-2018 for Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe
and B36.19M-2018 for Stainless Steel Pipe (12) (13). The total pipe thickness could then be
H-53
calculated as the thickness determined using the above formula added by the sum of mechanical
allowances.
𝑡𝑚 = 𝑡 + 𝑐
A corrosion allowance of 0 mm was specified for stainless steel and 3.0 mm for carbon
steel based on corrosion allowances applied for existing CO2 Recovery Plant equipment. An
additional 0.5 mm was applied to the sum of mechanical allowances to account for machined
surfaces or grooves where the tolerance was not specified.
Sample calculations will be shown for Stream 73, which is used to transport rich amine
from the CO2 absorber. The line was sized to be 14.00 inches nominal diameter (14.00 O.D).
Stainless steel was selected as the material specification due to the high acid gas content. The
reasons for this material selection will be explored further in Section 6 of this Appendix.
0.0254 𝑚
3700 𝑘𝑃𝑎 ∗ 14.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 ∗
𝑡= 1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ = 0.00565 𝑚 = 5.65 𝑚𝑚
2 ∗ (115,000 𝑘𝑃𝑎 ∗ 1.00 ∗ 1.00 + 3700 𝑘𝑃𝑎 ∗ 0.4)
1 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
𝑡𝑚 = 5.65𝑚𝑚 + 0.5 𝑚𝑚 = 6.15 𝑚𝑚 ∗ = 0.24 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠
25.4 𝑚𝑚
Looking at ASME B36.19M, the required schedule for 14.00 inch pipe would be
Schedule 40S with a wall thickness of 0.375 inches. The lower schedule would have a wall
thickness of 0.188 which is less than what is required.
After the thickness was calculated, the inside diameter of the pipe was determined by the
simple formula:
𝐼. 𝐷. = 𝑂. 𝐷 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑚 = 14.00 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 − 2 ∗ 0.375 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 = 13.25 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠
H-54
The fluid velocity was re-calculated using this inner diameter using the method described in
5.2.2. If the velocity or pressure drop for this inside diameter was out of the allowable range, the
whole process was repeated for the next pipe size higher. The lines for two-phase flow were also
re-evaluated to see if the variance between the inside diameter and nominal pipe size constituted
enough of a different to change the type of flow regime.
Several high velocity lines were identified through the line sizing process for the 112 %
and 125 % redesign cases. These high velocity lines exceeded the 1.8 m/s recommended
maximum velocity from API RP 945 (9). The existing process line sizes may be different than
what was determined through this sizing process and the simulation produces different properties
than the design basis, meaning the pipes may not be high velocity in the existing facility.
However, it is recommended that the client investigates this potential risk to ensure that
corrosion of the CO2 Recovery Plant equipment is minimized.
A summary of the main process lines, including the nominal pipe size, schedule, material
specification, expected velocity, and type of flow regime is shown on the next page.
H-55
8.1. Size of Main Process Lines Summary
H-56
9. Material Selection
Proper material selection is imperative to ensure that process equipment operates in a safe
manner throughout its projected lifetime. Some of the materials of construction selected were
based on existing specifications from equipment data sheets provided by the client. For other
streams that were unknown, the material selection was conducted based on potential corrosion and
cracking mechanisms found in the American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices
945 and 571, and guidelines found in literature (14; 15; 16; 17; 18).
9.1. Potential Cracking Mechanisms
9.1.1. Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC)

Sulphide Stress Cracking is defined at the cracking of a metal under the combined action
of tensile stress and corrosion in the presence of water and hydrogen sulphide. The hydrogen
sulfide liberates atomic hydrogen at the metal surface, and poisons the recombination of atomic
hydrogen into molecular hydrogen, which promotes the absorption of atomic hydrogen by the
steel. The SSC mechanism involves hydrogen embrittlement, particularly in areas of high metal
hardness such as weld deposits and weld heat-affected zones in the adjacent base metal. The
potential for SSC was not evaluated in-depth due to the presence of hydro-desulphurization
reactors located upstream of the CO2 Removal Unit that removes H2S to a high purity. However,
SSC can be minimized by applying proper Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT).
9.1.2. Hydrogen-induced Cracking (HIC)

Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (HIC) is a result of excessive internal hydrogen pressure. HIC
is defined as stepwise internal cracks that connect adjacent hydrogen blisters on different planes
in the metal, or to the metal surface. No externally applied stress is needed for the formation of
H-57
HIC. HIC can be minimized by selecting a higher quality steel with low inclusion content.
Increased resistance to blistering and HIC is usually achieved by lowering the sulfur content of the
steel and controlling the sulfide inclusion morphology by calcium or rare earth metal additions to
produce spheroidal sulfide shapes. Base metal heat treatments, such as normalizing or quenching,
and tempering above 593 ℃, increase resistance to HIC.
9.1.3. Stress-Oriented Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (SOHIC)

Stress-Oriented Hydrogen-Induced Cracking is a special form of HIC that occurs in the
base metal, adjacent to the heat-affected zone of a weld, where there are high residual stresses from
welding. The use of higher quality HIC-resistant steels can reduce the likelihood of SOHIC. Tests
have shown that these steels generally have a higher hydrogen flux threshold for SOHIC than
conventional steels, but SOHIC would still occur in these steels if that threshold was exceeded.
9.1.4. Alkaline Stress Corrosion Cracking (ASCC)

Alkaline Stress Corrosion is the cracking of a metal produced by the combined action of
corrosion in an aqueous alkaline environment containing H2S, CO2, and tensile stress. It typically
occurs in non-stress relieved carbon steels. In as-welded steels, cracks typically propagate parallel
to the weld in adjacent base metals but can also occur in the weld deposits or heat-affected zones.
ASCC can occur over a wide range of temperatures, but susceptibility appears to increase as
temperature rises.
ASCC can occur in a variety of steels. Tests have indicated there is no significant
correlation between susceptibility to ASCC and steel properties, since the metal hardness has no
relation to ASCC. Susceptibility to ASCC does have correlation to temperature and tensile stress
H-58
levels. Therefore, a way to effectively control ASCC is post welding heat treatment and proper
heat treatment after cold forming.
9.1.5. Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking caused by a combination of tensile stresses,
temperatures, and an aqueous chloride environment. The presence of dissolved oxygen can
increase the propensity for cracking. Tests have shown that increasing temperatures can increase
the susceptibility to cracking. Increasing levels of chloride increase the likelihood of cracking as
well.
Cl SCC usually occurs in 300 series stainless steels. The use of resistant materials such as
duplex stainless steels and nickel-based alloys can help reduce the likelihood of Cl SCC. Duplex
stainless steels are more resistant than 300 series stainless steels but are still susceptible. Nickel-
based alloys are highly resistant, but not immune. Designs should be adjusted so that there are no
stagnant regions where chlorides can concentrate or deposit.
9.1.6. Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking

To prevent Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking, all carbon steel welds in piping and
equipment should undergo PWHT in accordance with API RP 945. The use of solid or clad
stainless steel, Alloy 400 or other corrosion resistant alloys should be considered in place of carbon
steel.
Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking is caused by a combination of tensile stress and corrosion
in aqueous alkanolamine systems used to remove/absorb H2S and/or CO2 and their mixtures from
various gas and liquid hydrocarbon streams. Tests have shown that increasing temperatures can
increase the susceptibility to Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking. Cracking is more likely to occur
H-59
in lean MEA and DEA services but is also found in most amines, including MDEA and DIPA.
Cracking can also occur in non-PWHT’d piping and equipment as a result exposure to steamout
and to short-term amine carryover. To prevent Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking, all carbon steel
welds in piping and equipment should undergo PWHT in accordance with API RP 945. The use
of solid or clad stainless steel, Alloy 400 or other corrosion resistant alloys should be considered
in place of carbon steel.
9.2. Potential Corrosion Mechanisms

9.2.1. Erosion / Erosion-Corrosion
Erosion occurs when relative movement or impact between any combination of phases
results in the accelerated mechanical removal of surface material. Erosion-corrosion is the term
used when corrosion processes contribute to the erosion, such as when metal surfaces are exposed
to oxidating environments. All types of equipment exposed to moving fluids are subject to this
mechanism. Methods of mitigation include increasing pipe diameter to reduce fluid velocity,
increasing the wall thickness, using more corrosion resistant alloys, installation of cathodic
protection systems, or altering the process environment so that it is less corrosive.
9.2.2. Vibration-Induced Fatigue

This mechanism occurs when the dynamic loading due to vibration, water hammer, or
unstable fluid flow results in cracking of the material. The affected units or equipment include heat
exchanger tubes which may be susceptible to vortex shedding or safety relief valves which are
subject to chatter and premature pop-off. Mitigation strategies for vibration-induced fatigue
include the addition of anchors or dampening equipment to lessen the vibration or the removal of
the source of vibration entirely. Material upgrades are not usually a solution for this mechanism.
H-60
9.2.3. Cavitation
This mechanism is a form of erosion that occurs when fluid movement from low to high
pressure regions result in the formation and instantaneous collapse of tiny vapor bubbles. This
causes severe localized impact damage which debilitates the mechanical integrity of the
equipment. This phenomenon is most often found in pump casings and impellers where the
available net pressure suction head (NPSH) is inadequate. Strategies to prevent or mitigate
cavitation include the avoidance of conditions that allow the absolute pressure of the fluid to fall
below its vapor pressure or the usage of stronger, more corrosion resistant alloys. Streamlining the
flow path to reduce turbulence or decreasing the fluid velocities are examples of ways to avoid
conditions where cavitation may occur. Materials with high toughness will be better able to
withstand the high local pressures and impacts of the collapsing bubbles.
9.2.4. Cooling Water Corrosion

Cooling water corrosion is described as the general or localized corrosion of material caused
by dissolved salts, gases, organic compounds, or microbiological activity present in the cooling
water. This mechanism is a concern for heat exchangers using cooling water as their utility stream,
along with cooling towers. Mitigation strategies include the proper treatment of the cooling water
systems and improving the metallurgy so that it is resistant to waters with high chloride content,
low velocities, high process temperatures, or poorly maintained water chemistry. Cooling water
should be on the tube side of heat exchangers to minimize stagnant areas where there is a high risk
of cooling water corrosion.
9.2.5. CO2 Corrosion

This mechanism of corrosion occurs when the dissolved CO2 in water forms carbonic acid
(H2CO3) and lowers the pH of the water, promoting an environment with high risk of corrosion.
H-61
This form of corrosion is generally weaker, so the only affected materials are carbon steel and low
alloy steels. Effluent gas streams of the shift converters in hydrogen plants and overhead systems
of regenerators within CO2 removal plants are examples of areas subjected to CO2 corrosion.
Mitigation strategies include Increasing the condensate pH to above 6 in steam condensate systems
or the usage of 300 Series, 400 Series, or duplex SS for the material selection as they are highly
resistant to this form of corrosion.
9.2.6. Flue-Gas Dew-Point Corrosion

This mechanism of corrosion occurs when the sulfur and chlorin species in fuel form sulfur
dioxide, sulfur trioxide, and hydrogen chloride within the combustion products. At low enough
temperatures, these gases and the water vapor in the flue gas will condense to form sulfurous acid,
sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid which can lead to severe corrosion. Carbon steel, low alloy
steels, and 300 series SS are the most commonly affect materials. Mitigation strategies include
maintaining the metallic surfaces at the back end of the boiler fired heaters above the temperatures
of sulfuric acid dewpoint corrosion. The use of 300 series SS in feedwater heaters should be
avoided if the environment is likely to contain chlorides.
9.2.7. Hydrogen Embrittlement

The phenomenon occurs when atomic hydrogen penetrates through the material resulting in
the loss in ductility of high strength steels. Ultimately this leads to brittle cracking of the material.
The affected materials include carbon steel, 400 Series SS, Precipitation Hardenable (PH) SS, and
certain high strength nickel-based alloys. Bolts and springs made of high strength steel are very
susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. Alloys which have a tensile strength of higher than 150 ksi
can absorb hydrogen during electroplating and crack. Other areas of concern would be carbon steel
piping and vessels in wet H2S services in amine, hydroprocessing, and sour water units. The
H-62
prevention and mitigation strategies include the usage of lower strength steels and PWHT to
temper the microstructure, improve ductility, and reduce residual stresses and hardness. Another
strategy would be to apply protective linings, SS claddings, or weld overclays to prevent surface
hydrogen reactions in corrosive aqueous environments.
9.2.8. Amine Corrosion

This mechanism of corrosion refers to the general and/or localized corrosion principally
on carbon steel in amine treating processes. The corrosion is not caused by the amine itself, but
results from dissolved acid gases, amine degradation products, Heat Stable Amine Salts, and
other containments. Mitigation strategies included upgrading from carbon steel to 300 Series SS
or other corrosion resistant materials when possible. The most effective way to control corrosion
is the proper operation of the amine system with particular attention to acid gas loading.
9.2.9. High Temp H2/H2S Corrosion

The presence of hydrogen in H2S-containing hydrocarbon streams increases the severity
of high temperature sulfide corrosion at temperatures above about 260°C. The operating
temperature of the syngas feed is very low (<65°C), therefore this corrosion mechanism will not
be applicable for the CO2 Removal Unit.
9.3. Carbon Steel

Corrosion in amine units has typically been higher for amine units that remove primarily
CO2, as opposed to other units that remove hydrogen sulfide or mixtures of hydrogen sulfide (14).
This is because hydrogen sulfide forms a protective iron sulfide scales on carbon steel.
Nevertheless, carbon steel has been widely used in locations with mild processing conditions and
low acid gas concentration, such as lean amine streams. This is due to its affordability and
H-63
relatively high strength in comparison to other materials of choice. Thus, ASTM A106 Grade B
carbon steel was selected for these streams. To reduce chances of cracking or corrosion in carbon
steel piping, the velocity of amine streams is recommended to be kept below 1.8 m/s (14). For
MDEA units, PWHT is also recommended for all carbon steel equipment exposed to amine service
temperatures above 82°C.
9.3.1. Killed Carbon Steel

ASTM A333 Grade 6 killed carbon steel was selected for stream 83 due to the operating
temperature of the stream being 113.6°C in the base case. Killed carbon steel is steel manufactured
by a specific process to reduce voids in the material where hydrogen can collect and react to form
hydrogen gas and cause hydrogen blisters or hydrogen induced cracking. Kill carbon steel is more
resistant to these types of corrosion damage than conventional carbon steel.
9.4. Stainless Steel

Low-carbon and stabilized grades of austenitic steels have successfully been used in areas
of high corrosion rates due to their high strength and corrosion resistance over a wide range of
operating conditions (14). Types of stainless steel used in literature and historically for MDEA
units were ASTM A358 Type 304L and Type 316L stainless steel. Stainless steel was thus used
for regions of the process that are more prone to corrosion, such as areas with a high acid gas
loading, high velocity, vapour flashing, two-phase flow, and operating temperatures well above
110°C. Type 316L stainless steel has higher corrosion resistance in chloride containing
environments, and was selected over Type 304L stainless steel for areas of the process that
circulated process water or cooling water, which had a high chance of containing trace amounts of
chlorides.
H-64
H-65
List of References
1. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME Code for Pressure Piping.
[Standard] New York : s.n., 2016. B31.3.
97087683-2-3.
3. Robert H. Perry, Don W. Green, James O. Maloney. Perry's Chemical Engineering
Handbook, Seventh Edition. [Document] s.l. : McGraw-Hill, 1997.
4. Pick, W. Pipelines, Flow and Line Sizing. [Document] Edmonton : Ch E 464 Winter 2018 -
Chemical Engineering Design I: Module 02 (Lecture 5), 2018.
5. Engineering Toolbox. Ratios of Specific Heat of Gases. Engineering Toolbox. [Online] 2003.
[Cited: April 7, 2019.] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-ratio-d_608.html.
6. Church, Len. Line Sizing. [Document] Edmonton : CH E 465 Winter 2019 - Tutorial 12 -
Process Line Sizing and Fluid Flow, 2014.
7. KLM Technology Group. Piping Hydraulics Fluid Flow - Line Sizing and Material
Selection. [Document] 2013.
8. Ludwig, Ernest E. Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants. s.l. :
Gulf Professional Publishing, 1999.
9. The American Petroleum Institute. Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine Units.
[Document] Washington : s.n., 2008. API RP 945.
H-66
10. Bruce R. Munson, Donald F. Young, Theodore H. Okiishi, Wade W. Huebsch.
Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, Sixth Edition. s.l. : John WIley & Sons, Inc., 2009.
11. Andre G. McDonald, Hugh L. Magande. Introduction to Thermo-Fluids System Design.
s.l. : John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
12. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Stainless Steel Pipe. [Standard] New
York : s.n., 2018. B36.19M.
13. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Welded and Seamless Wroght Steel Pipe.
[Standard] New York : s.n., 2018. B36.10M.
14. American Petroleum Insititute. Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine Units.
[Document] Washington : s.n., 2008. API RP 945.
15. American Petroleum Institute. Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the
Refining Industry. [Document] Washington : s.n., 2011. API RP 571.
16. Glocal CCS Institute. Material Selection for Amine Environments. Global CCS Institute.
[Online] [Cited: April 9, 2019.] https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/corrosion-and-
materials-selection-ccs-systems/73-material-selection-amine-environments.
17. Corrosion and Materials Selection for Amine Service. Rennie, S. s.l. : Materials Forum,
2006, Vol. 30.
18. Predicting and Mitigating Corrosion in Amine Units. Jones, Clayton E., et al. Oklahoma :
Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference, 2015.
H-67
19. Perry, Robert H and Green, Don W. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 8th. New
York : McGraw-Hill, 2007. 978-0071422949.
20. Engineering Data Book. Gas Processors Suppliers Association. Tulsa : s.n., 2004, Vol. 1
and 2.
21. A Procedure for Preliminary Estimate. Brown, R. s.l. : Chem. Eng., 1978, Vol. 85.
23. Production & Processing Facilities Tip of the Month. PetroSkills|John M. Campbell. 2015.
H-68
Appendix I: Heat Exchanger Design

Description
This appendix includes the procedure for the detailed design of a heat exchanger. The
guideline provided by Donald Quentin Kern in Process Heat Transfer (1950) for the design of a
heat exchanger was followed. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Division 1,
ASME B31.3 Process Piping, and Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
were also referenced.
As part of the 125% capacity increase, an additional heat exchanger, E-85A/B, was
proposed to increase the cooling of the lean amine stream as it enters the CO2 Absorber. A
completed design specification sheet for the heat exchanger is included with calculations and
justification supporting how values were chosen.
Table of Contents
1. Preliminary Heat Exchanger Design Considerations .............................................................. I-1
2. Heat Exchanger Type .............................................................................................................. I-2
3. Fouling and Corrosion Concerns ............................................................................................ I-2
3.1. Placement of Fluid........................................................................................................... I-2
3.2. Material Specification ..................................................................................................... I-3
3.3. Fluid Flow ....................................................................................................................... I-3
4. Calculations............................................................................................................................. I-3
4.1. Process Conditions .......................................................................................................... I-3
4.1. Heat Balance.................................................................................................................... I-4
4.2. True Temperature Difference .......................................................................................... I-5
4.3. Iteration Method .............................................................................................................. I-6
4.3.1. Tube Side: Film Coefficient Calculation................................................................... I-7
4.3.2. Tube Side: Pressure Drop Calculation ...................................................................... I-9
4.3.3. Shell Side: Film Coefficient Calculation................................................................... I-9
i
4.3.4. Shell Side: Pressure Drop Calculation .................................................................... I-10

4.4. Clean Overall Coefficient .............................................................................................. I-11
4.5. Dirt Factor ..................................................................................................................... I-11
4.6. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient ................................................................................. I-12
5. Heat Exchanger Specification Sheet ..................................................................................... I-12
List of References ....................................................................................................................... I-14
ii
1. Preliminary Heat Exchanger Design Considerations

Heat Concerns and
Knowns
Exchanger Unknowns
The purpose of the heat exchanger E-85 is to cool down lean
amine before it enters the CO2 Absorber to increase CO2
absorption. Lean amine leaving the LP Flash Stripper is cooled
Purpose
by the semilean amine stream and further cooled by an air
cooler. Before entering the absorber, this exchanger will fulfill
additional cooling required to increase absorption.
The lean amine is regenerated in the LP Flash Stripper, no
reaction occurs as it travels to the heat exchanger. Cooling of
Process
this stream does not cause a reaction. Lean amine will be cooled
Chemistry
by utility water with only sensible heat. No phase change will
occur.
The process side will operate at 4099 kPa[g] and 304.8 - 307.9
Process
K. The utility side will operate at 500 kPa[g] and 297.2 - 304.2
Conditions
K.
Cooling water will be used as the utility stream. In the scope of
Utilities this project, additional utility requirement is assumed to be
Required supplied by existing infrastructure. Building a new facility will
not be required.
U will be determined by
Duty and Only sensible heat will be transferred. The heat duty Q will be hand calculations. A
Area 350 kW and the UA will be 50.18 kW/K. will be calculated once
this is done.
The most common heat exchangers used are shell and tube, air
coolers, and plate and frame. Since plate and frame exchangers
foul quickly, shell and tube heat exchangers are the most
suitable when using cooling water to cool process stream. Using
the heat exchanger selection chart (Ludwig), U-Tube/U-Bundle Need effective area A
is the most suitable type. Although our streams are all below required to justify heat
Possible
315 K, this type can handle high temperature differentials which exchanger type. Other
Exchanger
could be possible if insufficient cooling occurs in upstream information such as P,
Types
exchangers. It can easily be cleaned on the tube side as well as T, Q can also be used to
the shell side and can be installed vertically or horizontally help in selection.
depending on the space available. Fixed tube sheet is also an
option but is more limited in terms of fouling service and
cleanability on the shell side. It also does not allow for thermal
expansion.
Turbulent Turbulence is not required. In terms of corrosion, higher
Calculate velocity.
Flow velocities and turbulence will cause localized thickness losses.
Amine corrosion due to dissolved CO2 and H2S can affect
carbon steel (300 Series SS are highly resistant). Additionally,
low alloy steels subjected to tensile stress can undergo amine
Corrosion
stress corrosion cracking. If an exchanger tube leaks, water will
mix with the lean amine solution entering the CO2 absorber and
the stream will not be sufficiently cooled. This will affect the
I-1
ability of the tower to absorb CO2 from the inlet Syngas stream.
Carbonic avid corrosion must also be considered.
Cooling water will not be completely rid of
contaminants/particles when circulated throughout the process.
Fouling This can lead to scaling in the tube walls and cause fouling.
Cooling water will be passed on the tube side as this side is
easier to clean.
Research PSV
Safety
requirements.
Potential health effects on personnel exposed to MDEA. Vessel
Risk
could be over-pressurized by upstream lean amine pump.
Type of
Heat CEU
Exchanger
2. Heat Exchanger Type

The most common types of heat exchangers in industry include shell and tube, plate and frame,
and kettle reboilers depending on the service needed. A shell and tube heat exchanger was chosen
since its wide variety can cater to the specific needs of the lean amine and cooling water heat
exchange. To mitigate thermal stress and to allow for maintenance, removable U-tube bundles
were chosen. Based on the temperatures desired, the number of tube and shell passes is determined,
and the type of heat exchanger specified. Using the analysis outlined below, the 2-4 shell and tube
heat exchanger was chosen which was achieved by using two 1-2 CEU shell and tube heat
exchanger.
3. Fouling and Corrosion Concerns

3.1. Placement of Fluid
The heat exchanger will be exchanging heat between lean amine regenerated from the LP
Flash Stripper and cooling water. The lean amine must be cooled before entering the CO2 Absorber
to improve absorption. Cooling water will be placed on the tube side of the heat exchanger due to
I-2
fouling concerns. This is because of the mineral content of the cooling water and the tendency of
scaling from cooling water use. Since the lean amine is less of a fouling concern, it will be placed
in the shell.
3.2. Material Specification

The heat exchanger material was selected with considerations from API 571: Damage
Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry. The mechanisms considered
include amine corrosion, amine stress corrosion cracking, and carbon dioxide corrosion. However,
since the lean amine has low carbon dioxide content, carbon steel will suffice for the shell side.
Stainless steel was chosen for the tubes to account for increased mineral content of the water that
could cause corrosion and to combat the effects of the contacting lean amine. Even if stainless
steel is more expensive, this will make the tubes more resistant to corrosion.
3.3. Fluid Flow

Turbulent flow is not required in this service. In terms of corrosion, higher velocities and
turbulence will cause localized thickness losses. On the other hand, lower velocities result in
stagnant fluids which encourage fouling. Due to the effects of flow on the fouling and corrosion
mechanisms involved, the velocities were calculated and verified to be in the acceptable range.
4. Calculations
4.1. Process Conditions
In this heat exchanger, the lean mine is the hot fluid while cooling water is the cold fluid.
English Engineering Units will be used in this analysis to be consistent with the procedure and
correlations provided by Kern (1950). The final parameters will be converted to SI Units. The
following process conditions were obtained for both fluids:
I-3
Hot Fluid: Lean Amine

Inlet Temperature, T1 °F 104
Outlet Temperature, T2 °F 94
Mass flow rate, W lb/hr 1356214
Specific Heat Capacity, C BTU/lb/°F 0.92
Specific Gravity, s - 1.04
Dynamic Viscosity, µ lb/ft/hr 8.16
Thermal Conductivity, k BTU/hr/ft2/(°F/ft) 0.22
2
Dirt Factor, Rd (hr*ft *°F)/BTU 0.002
Allowable Pressure Drop, ΔP psi 10
Cold Fluid: Cooling Water

Inlet Temperature, t1 °F 75
Outlet Temperature, t2 °F 95
Mass flow rate, w lb/hr 598708
Specific Heat Capacity, c BTU/lb/°F 1.00
Specific Gravity, s - 1.00
Dynamic Viscosity, µ lb/ft/hr 2.03
Thermal Conductivity, k BTU/hr/ft2/(°F/ft) 0.35
Dirt Factor, Rd (hr*ft2*°F)/BTU 0.001
Allowable Pressure Drop, ΔP psi 10
Note that these properties are taken at the average temperature of each fluid since temperatures at
the tube wall are not known.
4.1. Heat Balance

The total heat duty exchanged is calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝑊𝐶(𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) = 𝑤𝑐(𝑡2 − 𝑡1 )
Lean Amine Duty BTU/hr 11831133

Cooling Water Duty BTU/hr 11837019
Simulation Duty BTU/hr 11830844
I-4
There is minimal discrepancy between the two fluid duties. The simulated value will be used for
design.
4.2. True Temperature Difference

Assuming a 1-2 shell and tube heat exchanger configuration:
(𝑇1 − 𝑡2 ) − (𝑇2 − 𝑡1 )
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 =
(𝑇 − 𝑡2 )
𝑙𝑛 1
(𝑇2 − 𝑡1 )
𝑇1 − 𝑇2
𝑅=
𝑡2 − 𝑡1
𝑡2 − 𝑡1
𝑆=
𝑇1 − 𝑡1
𝛥𝑡 = 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 × 𝐹𝑇
LMTD °F 13.49
R - 0.48
S - 0.69
True Temperature Difference, Δt °F 9.98
However, since the correction factor is below 0.75, the desired heat duty will be difficult to
achieve in a 1-2 shell and tube heat exchanger. Considering a 2-4 exchanger, the new values are:
LMTD °F 13.49
R - 0.48
S - 0.69
I-5
Given the heat duty required for this service, an exchanger with 2 shell passes and 4 tube passes
may be too large. It is good practice to design two smaller units than one large exchanger. For
this reason, two 1-2 heat exchangers will be designed and connected in series. The total heat
exchanger duty will be divided equally between the exchangers.
4.3. Iteration Method

A trial and error approach is used with the following steps:
a) Assume a tentative overall heat transfer coefficient, UD and compute the total surface
area, A=Q/(UD Δt). Determine the corresponding number of tubes.
Duty, Q BTU/hr 5915422

Overall Coefficient, UD BTU/hr/ft2/°F 105
Heat Transfer Surface, A ft2 4374.41
Initial tube characteristics are assumed, and the number of tubes calculated as:
𝐴
𝑁𝑇 =
𝜋𝐷𝑜 𝐿
BWG - 11
Outside Diameter, Do in 0.75
Inside Diameter, Di in 0.51
Tube Wall Thickness, Δx in 0.12
Length, L ft 16
Number of Passes, n - 2
Pitch (Square), PT in 1.00
Clearance between tubes, C' in 0.25
Flow area per tube, a't in2 0.204
Number of Tubes, NT - 1392
I-6
b) Assume a number of tube passes for the pressure drop allowed. Select an exchanger for
the nearest number of tubes.
As stated, the heat exchanger will have 2 tube passes. For a 0.75 in tube outside diameter
and 1 in square pitch, the following was obtained:
Shell Internal Diameter, ID in 45

Number of Tubes, NT - 1436
c) Correct the tentative UD to the actual surface of tubes.
The corrected values based on the new number of tubes are:
Heat Transfer Surface, A ft2 4511

Overall Coefficient, UD BTU/hr/ft2/°F 102
The performance calculation for the film coefficients starts with the tube side first. If the film
coefficient is greater than UD and the pressure drop is not exceeded, analysis moves on to the
shell side.
4.3.1. Tube Side: Film Coefficient Calculation

Due to fouling concerns, cooling water will run in the tube side and lean amine on the
shell side. Therefore, cooling water properties will be used for tube side calculations and lean
amine properties will be used to calculate shell side values.
The flow area as is calculated as:
𝑁𝑡 𝑎′𝑡
𝑎𝑡 =
144𝑛
The mass velocity is
I-7
𝑤
𝐺𝑡 =
𝑎𝑡
The Reynolds number is
𝐷𝑖 𝐺𝑡
𝑅𝑒𝑡 =
µ
The factor for heat transfer, jH, is obtained from Kern (1950). Since the properties are taken at an
average temperature, no correction factors will be necessary. The heat transfer coefficient is
determined as:
𝑘 𝑐µ 1
ℎ𝑖 = 𝑗𝐻 ( )3
𝐷𝑖 𝑘
Based on the outside diameter:
𝐷𝑖
ℎ𝑖𝑜 = ℎ𝑖
𝐷𝑜
The following values are obtained:
Tube side area, at ft2 1.02

Tube mass velocity, Gt lb/hr/ft2 588604
Factor for heat transfer, jH - 44
2
Heat transfer coefficient, hi BTU/hr/ft /°F 655
Heat transfer coefficient, hio BTU/hr/ft2/°F 446
Since the calculated coefficient is higher than UD, analysis can move on to the pressure drop.
I-8
4.3.2. Tube Side: Pressure Drop Calculation

For the Reynolds number obtained in the previous section, the friction factor f is obtained
from correlations in Kern (1950). The tube pressure drop is:
𝑓𝐺𝑡 2 𝐿𝑛
∆𝑃𝑡 =
5.22 × 1010 𝐷𝑖 𝑠
Using the tube mass velocity, the term V2/2g’ is obtained and
4𝑛𝑉 2
∆𝑃𝑟 =
𝑠2𝑔′
The total pressure drop is
∆𝑃𝑇 = ∆𝑃𝑡 + ∆𝑃𝑟
The total pressure drop for 2 tube passes is 1.65 psi. For 4 tube passes, the pressure drop is 3.3
psi.
Friction factor, f ft2/in2 0.000255

Tube pressure drop, ΔPt psi 1.28
2
V /2g' psi 0.05
Pressure drop return, ΔPr psi 0.37
Total pressure drop, ΔPT psi 1.65
4.3.3. Shell Side: Film Coefficient Calculation
After tube side requirements are fulfilled, the shell side is examined. Using an assumed
baffle spacing, the flow area is determined:
𝐼𝐷 × 𝐶′𝐵
𝑎𝑠 =
144𝑃𝑇
The mass velocity on the shell side is
I-9
𝑊
𝐺𝑠 =
𝑎𝑠
The Reynolds number on the shell side is
𝐷𝑒 𝐺𝑠
𝑅𝑒𝑠 =
µ
Where De is the equivalent diameter. The factor for heat transfer, jH, is obtained from Kern
(1950). Since the properties are taken at an average temperature, no correction factors will be
necessary. The heat transfer coefficient is determined as:
𝑘 𝑐µ 1
ℎ𝑜 = 𝑗𝐻 ( )3
𝐷𝑒 𝑘
Assumed segmental baffle cut % 25

Assumed baffle spacing in 36
Shell side area, as ft2 2.81
Shell mass velocity, Gs lb/hr/ft2 482209
Reynolds number, Res - 4681
Equivalent Diameter, De ft 0.0792
Factor for heat transfer, jH - 37
2
Heat transfer coefficient, ho BTU/hr/ft /°F 335
4.3.4. Shell Side: Pressure Drop Calculation

Using the shell side Reynolds number, the corresponding friction factor f is obtained from Kern
(1950). The number of crosses in the shell is determined by
12𝐿
𝑁+1=
𝐵
And the pressure drop on the shell side is
I-10
𝑓𝐺𝑠 2 𝐷𝑒 (𝑁 + 1)
∆𝑃𝑠 =
5.22 × 1010 𝐷𝑒 𝑠
The pressure drop for 1 shell pass is 2.93 psi. For 2 shell passes, the shell side pressure drop is
5.86 psi.
Number of crosses, N+1 - 6

Pressure drop, ΔPs psi 2.93
Since the film coefficient and pressure drop for each side are satisfactory, iteration is concluded.
4.4. Clean Overall Coefficient

The clean overall coefficient is calculated as:
ℎ𝑖𝑜 ℎ𝑜
𝑈𝑐 =
ℎ𝑖𝑜 + ℎ𝑜
Clean overall coefficient, Uc BTU/hr/ft2/°F 191
4.5. Dirt Factor

Aside from the resistances on the shell and tube side from the lean amine and cooling
water respectively, the resistance from the tube wall, Rd,w, is also considered.
∆𝑥
𝑅𝑑,𝑤 =
𝑘
Thermal Conductivity of Tube Material, k Btu/hr/ft/°F 9.40

Wall resistance, Rd,w (hr*ft2*°F)/BTU 0.001
Total Dirt Factor Required, Rd (hr*ft2*°F)/BTU 0.004
I-11
The actual dirt factor is calculated as
𝑈𝑐 − 𝑈𝐷
𝑅𝑑 =
𝑈𝑐 𝑈𝐷
Calculated dirt factor, Rd (hr*ft2*°F)/BTU 0.0046
Since the actual dirt factor is greater than required, the designed heat exchanger is sufficient for
service.
4.6. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

In the instance where an actual dirt factor equal to the minimum dirt factor is desired
(Rd=0.004), the overall heat transfer coefficient required is calculated by
1 1 1
= + + 𝑅𝑑
𝑈𝐷 ℎ𝑜 ℎ𝑖𝑜
Overall coefficient, UD BTU/hr/ft2/°F 108
5. Heat Exchanger Specification Sheet

The design conditions including physical size of the heat exchanger as well as the design
pressure and temperature are laid out in the specification sheet below. Design conditions were
determined using ASME Code Section VIII Division 1 and ASME B31.3 Process Piping.
I-12
SHELL & TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER DATA SHEET
CLIENT CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. ITEM NO. E-85

PROJECT CO2 RECOVERY PLANT REVAMP SERVICE LEAN AMINE COOLER
SIZE 1143--4877 mm TYPE CEU HORIZONTAL CONNECTED IN 2 SERIES
SHELLS / UNIT 2 SURFACE / SHELL 406.5 m2
PERFORMANCE
IN SHELL SIDE OUT IN TUBE SIDE OUT
FLUID CIRCULATED LEAN AMINE COOLING WATER
TOTAL FLUID kg / hr 615168 271570
VAPOUR kg / hr
LIQUID kg / hr 615168 615168 271570 271570
NONCONDENSABLE kg / hr
TEMPERATURE ℃ 40 35 24 35
DENSITY - LIQUID / VAPOUR kg/m3 1033 1036 997 993
VISCOSITY - LIQUID / VAPOUR cP 3 4 1 1
MOLE WT kg/kmol 28.18 28.18 18.02 18.02
SPECIFIC HEAT - LIQUID/VAPOUR kJ / (kg℃) 3840 3817 4184 4177
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY - LIQUID VAPOUR W / (m℃) 0.39 0.38 0.60 0.62
LATENT HEAT kJ / kG
INLET PRESSURE kPa(g) 4099 1000
VELOCITY m/ s 0.6 0.8
PRESSURE DROP kPa ALLOW 69 CALC 20 ALLOW 69 CALC 23
FOULING RESISTANCE (m2℃) / W 0.00035 0.00018
HEAT EXCHANGED kW 3467 MTD CORRECTED (℃) 12.9
TRANSFER RATE W / (m2℃) SERVICE 611 CLEAN 1086
DESIGN - MATERIAL - CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN / TEST PRESSURE kPa(g) 5708 1100
DESIGN TEMPERATURE ℃ 149 93
NO. PASSES PER SHELL 1 2
CORROSION ALLOWANCE mm 3
CONNECTIONS INLET 355.6 254
SIZE & OUTLET 355.6 254
RATING INTERMEDIATE
TUBES NO. 1436 OD (mm) 19 THICKNESS (mm) 3 LENGTH (m) 4.9
TUBE TYPE PLAIN MATERIAL SS 316L PITCH (mm) 25 PITCH TYPE SQUARE PITCH ANGLE
SHELL CS ID (mm) 1143 OD (mm) 1200 SHELL COVER CS
CHANNEL OR BONNET CS CHANNEL COVER CS
TUBESHEET STATIONARY SS 316L TUBESHEET FLOATING
FLOATING HEAD COVER IMPINGEMENT PROTECTION NONE
BAFFLES-CROSS CS TYPE SINGLE-SEGMENTAL CUT (% DIAM) 25 SPACING (C / C) (mm) 914.4
BAFFLES-LONG CS SEAL TYPE
SUPPORTS-TUBE CS U BEND SS 316L TYPE
BYPASS SEAL ARRANGEMENT TUBESHEET JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT TYPE
pV2 - INLET NOZZLE BUNDLE ENTRANCE BUNDLE EXIT
GASKETS SHELL SIDE TUBE SIDE
FLOATING HEAD
CODE REQUIREMENTS ASME Code Section VIII Division 1 TEMA CLASS R - refinery service
WEIGHT/SHELL (kg) FILLED WITH WATER (kg) BUNDLE (kg)
REMARKS: Resistance due to tube wall included in analysis (0.000187 (m2℃) / W).
REV DATE BY
0 03/23/2019 Nympha Escobar
OKANE ENGINEERING
I-13
List of References
2. Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association. Tubular Exchanger
Manufactureres Association, Inc. New York : Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association,
2007, Vol. Ninth Edition.
3. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. The Americal Society of Mechanical Engineers.
New York : The Americal Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009.
4. ASME B31.3 Process Piping. The Americal Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York :
The Americal Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.
5. Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry. American
Petroleum Institute. Washington : API Publishing Services, 2010, Vol. Second Edition. API RP
571.
I-14
Appendix J: Economics
Description
This appendix contains all the information relating to the project economics, and outlines
the detailed calculations and assumptions made to obtain the fixed capital expenditure, operating
costs, discounted cash flows, and sensitivity analyses. Unless otherwise specified, all prices and
costs are expressed in Canadian dollars (C$).
Table of Contents
1. Economic Assumptions ......................................................................................................... J-1
2. Fixed Capital Expenditure ..................................................................................................... J-1
2.1. Equipment Purchase and Bare Module Costs ................................................................ J-1
2.1.1. Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger E-81C ........................................................................ J-2
2.1.2. Lean Amine Cooler E-85A/B ................................................................................... J-4
2.1.3. Reflux Vessel C-83 .................................................................................................. J-6
2.1.4. Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum C-87 ...................................................................... J-7
2.2. DFL Factors .................................................................................................................... J-8
2.3. Total Fixed Capital Expenditure .................................................................................... J-1
3. Working Capital Expenditure ................................................................................................ J-2
4. Operating Costs ...................................................................................................................... J-3
4.1. Onstream Time ............................................................................................................... J-3
4.2. Operating Labour ........................................................................................................... J-3
4.3. Utilities ........................................................................................................................... J-4
4.1. Remaining Expenses ...................................................................................................... J-6
5. Discounted Cash Flows.......................................................................................................... J-8
6. Sensitivity Analyses ............................................................................................................. J-17
6.1. 112% Case .................................................................................................................... J-17
6.2. 125% Case .................................................................................................................... J-18
7. References ............................................................................................................................ J-19
i
1. Economic Assumptions
The economic analysis is based on the additional CO2 being produced from the base case
and assumes all of this extra CO2 is being sold to potential consumers around the Fort McMurray
region. It is also assumed that the infrastructure required to transport the CO2 is already in place.
From the discussions with the client, 50% of the CO2 produced on a molar basis is sent for tailings
treatment, which is a static value of approximately 594,000 mol/h or 26,000 kg/h. This amount of
CO2 being sent to tailings treatment is not accounted for in this analysis since it is only applied to
the existing base CO2 production.
2. Fixed Capital Expenditure

2.1. Equipment Purchase and Bare Module Costs
Table J1 summarizes the equipment purchase costs without adjustments included for
material and pressure factors. Figure J1 displays the purchase cost breakdown in the form of a pie
chart. The purchase costs, material factors, and pressure factors for the heat exchangers and drums
were obtained using Ulrich & Vasudevan costing charts, which are based on the US Gulf Coast
2004 pricing (1). These costs were adjusted to account for inflation and currency, resulting in an
appropriate value in $CAD for 2019. An exchange rate of 1.33 was used to convert from $USD to
$CAD (2). The target Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) used was 616.4 from
November 2018, with a base reference of 400 from 2004 (3).
Table J1: Purchase Cost of each Equipment
J-1
Equipment Purchase Cost ($MM)

E-81C $0.05
E-85A/B $0.06
C-83 $0.04
C-87 $0.02
C-80 IMTP #25 Random Packing $0.36
C-82 IMTP #40 Random Packing $0.52
Total Equipment Purchase Cost $1.04
Heat Exchangers,
Total Purchase
$.11 MM
Cost:
Vessels,
$.06 MM
Packing,
$.88 MM
Figure J1: Equipment Purchase Cost Breakdown
2.1.1. Lean/Rich Amine Exchanger E-81C

An additional E-81 exchanger will be added to facilitate further cooling needed for the
125% capacity increase. The calculated heat exchange area is 595 m2. This is a flat plate heat
exchanger, so the equipment purchase cost is obtained from Figure 5.39 in Ulrich & Vasudevan:
𝐶𝑃 = $50,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
This cost assumes the equipment uses carbon steel as the material and operates at relatively low
pressures. To adjust for material and pressure factors, a bare module factor must be applied. E-
J-2
81C uses stainless steel SS316 on both the shell and tube sides due to the corrosivity of the amine
solutions. From Table 5.39, the material factor for this exchanger is:
𝐹𝑀 = 3
Figure 5.37 is then used to obtain the pressure factor needed alongside the material factor to obtain
the bare module factor. The pressure factor of flat and spiral plate heat exchangers is 1 regardless
of the operating pressure:
𝐹𝑃 = 1
Using the above material and pressure factors, and the bare module factor is obtained from Figure
5.38:
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 5.8
Applying this factor to the equipment purchase cost, the bare module cost of E-81C is calculated
as:
𝑎
𝐶𝐵𝑀 = 𝐶𝑃 ∙ 𝐹𝐵𝑀 = ($50,000)(5.8) = $290,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
This value is then adjusted for time and currency factors to obtain the bare module cost today in
CAD. The target CEPCI is November 2018 with a value of 616.4, and the base is the January 2004
CEPCI of 400. The current conversion rate from USD to CAD is 1.33. Applying the time and
currency factors gives a bare module cost of:
616.4
𝐶𝐵𝑀 = ($290,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004) ( ) (1.33) = $594,364 𝐶𝐴𝐷, 𝐴𝐵, 2018
400
J-3
The bare module factor must then be adjusted for DFL considerations. The detailed calculations
for this are contained in Section 1.2 DFL Factors. The bare module factor adjusted for DFL is
calculated to be:
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀,𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 11.07
Applying this DFL factor along with time and currency factors to the equipment purchase cost
results in the adjusted bare module cost of E-81C:
𝑎 616.4
𝐶𝐵𝑀,𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐶𝑃 ∙ 𝐹𝐵𝑀,𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = ($50,000)(11.07) ( ) (1.33)
400
= $1,134,692 𝐶𝐴𝐷, 𝐴𝐵, 2018
2.1.2. Lean Amine Cooler E-85A/B

A new trim cooler will be added downstream of the E-84 air cooler to facilitate further
cooling of the regenerated lean amine solution before it enters the C-80 CO2 Absorber. This
exchanger is designed as two TEMA designated CEU type shell and tube heat exchangers arranged
in series. CEU exchangers utilize a U-tube as the rear end head type. The total calculated heat
exchanger area is 815.41 m2. The exchanger is split into two equal areas of 408 m2 each and the
cost of each area is added together to obtain the cost of E-85A/B. From Figure 5.36 in Ulrich &
Vasudevan, the equipment purchase cost is:
𝐶𝑃 = 2($30,000) = $60,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
E-85A/B uses carbon steel (CS) on the shell side and stainless steel (SS316) on the tube side. From
Table 5.39, the material factor for this exchanger is:
𝐹𝑀 = 1.7
J-4
E-80 operates using a shell side inlet pressure of 4099 kPa or 40.99 barg and a tube side inlet
pressure of 448 kPa or 4.48 barg, so the heat exchanger operates at high pressure on the shell side
alone. This corresponds to a pressure factor of:
𝐹𝑃 = 1.13
5.38:
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 4.5
Applying this factor to the equipment purchase cost, the bare module cost of E-85A/B is calculated
as:
𝑎
𝐶𝐵𝑀 = 𝐶𝑃 ∙ 𝐹𝐵𝑀 = (60,000)(4.5) = $270,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
Applying the time and currency factors gives a bare module cost of:
616.4
400
The bare module factor adjusted for DFL is calculated to be:
𝑎
results in the adjusted bare module cost of E-85A/B:
𝑎 616.4
400
= $1,061,950 𝐶𝐴𝐷, 𝐴𝐵, 2018
J-5
2.1.3. Reflux Vessel C-83

The C-83 Reflux Vessel downstream of the C-82 LP Flash Stripper is resized and will
replace the existing vessel to accommodate the 125% capacity increase. This is a vertically
oriented vessel with a height and inside diameter of 7.5 m and 2.5 m, respectively, calculated using
the Sauders Brown method. From Figure 5.44 in Ulrich & Vasudevan, the equipment purchase
cost is:
𝐶𝑃 = $38,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
The material of this vessel is stainless steel SS 304L. Table 5.45 gives a material factor of:
𝐹𝑀 = 4
The reflux vessel operates with an inlet pressure of 24 kPa or 0.24 barg. Figure 5.45 gives a
pressure factor of:
𝐹𝑃 = 1.25
5.46:
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 11.2
Applying this factor to the equipment purchase cost, the bare module cost of C-83 is calculated as:
𝑎
616.4
400
J-6
𝑎
results in the adjusted bare module cost of C-83:
𝑎 616.4
400
= $1,810,920 𝐶𝐴𝐷, 𝐴𝐵, 2018
2.1.4. Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum C-87

The C-87 Absorber Overhead K.O. Drum downstream of the C-80 CO2 Absorber is resized
and will replace the existing vessel to accommodate the 125% capacity increase. This is a vertically
oriented vessel with a GPSA calculated height and inside diameter of 4.8 m and 1.6 m,
respectively. From Figure 5.44 in Ulrich & Vasudevan, the equipment purchase cost is:
𝐶𝑃 = $18,000 𝑈𝑆𝐷, 𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶, 2004
The material of this vessel is carbon steel. Table 5.45 gives a material factor of:
𝐹𝑀 = 1
The reflux vessel operates with inlet and outlet pressures of 3249 kPa or 32.49 barg. Figure 5.45
gives a pressure factor of:
𝐹𝑃 = 2.8
5.46:
J-7
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 7.5
Applying this factor to the equipment purchase cost, the bare module cost of C-87 is calculated as:
𝑎
616.4
400
𝑎
results in the adjusted bare module cost of C-87:
𝑎 616.4
400
= $576,860 𝐶𝐴𝐷, 𝐴𝐵, 2018
2.2. DFL Factors

This section will show the sample DFL calculations for the E-81C Lean/Rich Amine
Exchanger. Table J3 summarizes all equipment costs accounted for DFL. The initial DFL and bare
module factors for each type of equipment are taken from Table 9-13 in Guthrie (1969) (4). Table
G2 provides the purchase cost and DFL summary for all pieces of equipment. Since Guthrie (1969)
does not provide DFL data for the IMTP random packing, an assumed factor of 0.05 was used. For
E-80, the basis factors for a shell and tube heat exchanger are chosen:
𝑐𝑠
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 3.37
J-8
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐺𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑒 = 0.63
These values use a basis of carbon steel material unadjusted for high pressure operations. Thus,
material and pressure adjustments must be made by first obtaining the bare module factor from
Ulrich & Vasudevan (2004):
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 = 5.8
Using the above bare module factors, the material and pressure adjusted DFL factor is:
𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀 5.8
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑈&𝑉 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐺𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑒 × 𝑐𝑠 = 0.63 × = 1.08
𝐹𝐵𝑀 3.37
This is the DFL factor for the US Gulf Coast. Cumulative adjustments are then made to this
value. The DFL adjustment factors and percent applicabilities are shown in Table J2 below:
Table J2: DFL Factor Summary
J-9
Factor Applicable? % Adjustment % Applicability

Labour Productivity
Alberta Greenfield ✓ Gulf Coast*25% 100%
Fort McMurray ✓ Above*25% 100%
Operating Facility ✓ Above*30% 100%
Facility Turnaround ✓ Above*50% 75%
Winter Work ✓ Above*30% 5%
Indirect Project Expenses
Overhead for DFL ✓ Adjustments*70% N/A
Additions
Scaffolding ✓ Total DFL*25% 100%
Miscellaneous Items
• For Project Cost ✓ Total DFL*30% 100%
<$50M
• For Project Cost ✗ N/A N/A
>$50M
Construction Camp ✓ +0.25 80%
Demolition ✗ N/A N/A
The first adjustment is the Alberta Greenfield factor to account for the effect of location:
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐴𝐵 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑈𝑆𝐺𝐶 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1.08 × 1.25 × 1.00
= 1.36
The Fort McMurray factor is then added to account for the construction taking place in the Fort
McMurray region. This is due to the region being a busy industrial area with extensive amounts
of production traffic.
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐹𝑡 𝑀𝑐𝑀𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐴𝐵 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 1.36 × 1.25 × 1.00 = 1.69
J-10
The operating facility factor is then added to adjust for the project being Brownfield. There will
be reduced labour productivity due to increased congestion at the site:
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐹𝑡 𝑀𝑐𝑀𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 1.69 × 1.30 × 1.00 = 2.20
The facility turnaround factor is then added to account for loss of labour productivity during a
turnaround. Since this is a unit revamp project, the chosen percent applicability was 75%:
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 2.20 × 1.50 × 0.75 = 3.03
The winter work factor is then added to account for the loss of labour productivity during the
winter period of November 31 to March 1:
𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 3.03 × 1.30 × 0.05 = 3.07
Once the winter work adjustment has been added, the resultant factor is known as the total DFL
factor. The cumulative adjustments for the indirect project expenses will be performed next. The
DFL additions must be calculated, which is simply the difference between the DFL factor after
the winter work addition and the DFL taken from Ulrich & Vasudevan:
𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑈&𝑉 = 3.07 − 1.08 = 1.99
The first indirect expense is the overhead for DFL additions:
𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 3.07 + 1.99 × 0.70 = 4.47
J-11
The next indirect expense is the scaffolding cost, which is required due to the increasingly strict
safety regulations over the past couple decades:
𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
+ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝐹𝐿 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 4.47 + 3.07 × 0.25 × 1.00 = 5.23
The next indirect expense is the cost of any miscellaneous items to be accounted for in the
project, which can include bottled water, coffee and lunch, or the construction of temporary
roads. Based on the estimated capital expenditure of our project being below $25 million CAD,
the chosen adjustment factor is 30%.
𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 = 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝐹𝐿 × % 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 5.23 + 3.07 × 0.30 × 1.00 = 6.16
The final indirect expense item is the construction camp cost, which is included due to the facility
being in a relatively remote area. Since the project involves adding the equipment in modules, the
percent applicability is slightly less than 100%. The value chosen for the project is 80%.
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑝 = 𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 + 0.25 × % 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
= 6.16 + 0.25 × 0.80 = 6.36
This value represents the total DFL factor that accounts for both labour productivity and indirect
expenses, and is used to adjust the bare module factor for DFL:
𝑎 𝑎
𝐹𝐵𝑀,𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐹𝐵𝑀 + (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑝 − 𝐷𝐹𝐿𝑈&𝑉 ) = 6.2 + (6.36 − 1.08) = 11.07
It was assumed that demolition costs were not applicable for the DFL estimation in this project.
J-12
Table J3: Equipment Cost and DFL Summary

Direct Project Expenses
Heat Exchangers Packing Drums
E-80 E-81 E-85 C-80 C-82 C-83 C-87
Equipment Cost, C_p ($USD Gulf Coast 2004) $0 $50,000 $74,000 $362,000 $516,000 $38,000 $18,000
Fcs_BM (from Guthrie Table 9-13) 3.37 3.37 3.37 - - 4.20 4.20
Prorated DFL 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.05 0.05 0.95 0.95
Material Factor, F_M 3 3 3 - - 4 1
Pressure Factor, F_P 1.11 1 1.13 - - 1.25 2.8
F_P*F_M 3.33 3 3.39 - - 5 2.8
Bare Module Factor, Fa_BM from U&V 6.2 5.8 6.4 1 1 11.2 7.5
Bare Module Cost, C_BM ($CAD Alberta 2018) $0 $594,364 $970,657 $741,930 $1,057,557 $872,280 $276,687
DFL adjusted for F_M and F_P 1.16 1.08 1.20 0.05 0.05 2.53 1.70
DFL Cumulative Adjustments - Labour Productivity
Alberta Greenfield 1.45 1.36 1.50 0.06 0.06 3.17 2.12
Fort McMurray 1.81 1.69 1.87 0.08 0.08 3.96 2.65
Operating Facility 2.35 2.20 2.43 0.10 0.10 5.15 3.45
Facility Turnaround 3.24 3.03 3.34 0.14 0.14 7.08 4.74
Winter Work 3.29 3.07 3.39 0.14 0.14 7.18 4.81
Total DFL Additions 2.13 1.99 2.20 0.09 0.09 4.65 3.11
Total DFL Factor 3.29 3.07 3.39 0.14 0.14 7.18 4.81
Construction OH Cumulative Adjustments - Indirect Project Expenses
Overhead for DFL Additions 4.77 4.47 4.93 0.21 0.21 10.44 6.99
Scaffolding 5.60 5.23 5.78 0.24 0.24 12.23 8.19
Miscellaneous Items 6.58 6.16 6.79 0.28 0.28 14.39 9.63
Construction Camp 6.78 6.36 6.99 0.48 0.48 14.59 9.83
Adjusted Bare Module Factor, Fa_BM 11.82 11.07 12.20 1.43 1.43 23.25 15.64
CEPCI Adjustment 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54
Currency Adjustment 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33
Adjusted Bare Module Cost, C_BMa ($CAD Alberta 2018) $0.00 $1,134,692.44 $1,849,932.23 $1,063,869.64 $1,516,455.06 $1,810,919.73 $576,859.85
J-1
2.3. Total Fixed Capital Expenditure

Taking the sum of the adjusted bare module costs in Table J4 yields a total bare module cost
of $7.95 million. Applying the contingencies along, contractor fees, engineering fees, owner fees,
and startup costs gives a total fixed capital expenditure of $14.89 million. Guidelines from the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) were referred to when determining the contingencies for
the project. Since the project involves the revamp of an existing, well known amine process already
in commercial use, the chosen process contingency was 0% (5). After discussions with Len
Church, the contractual fee was allocated at 7% of the total bare module cost. At this stage of the
project, only one P&ID has been developed and equipment specifications are considered to be at
the preliminary stage, so the project falls within the simplified category. Thus, the chosen project
contingency was 40% of the total module cost. The engineering or procurement expense was
prorated based on the estimated fixed capital expenditure of the project and was determined to be
18% of the total module cost plus project contingency. This percentage would be closer to 20% if
the estimated fixed capital was low at around $5 million and would be closer to 10% if the fixed
capital was high at around $50 million or over. The owner’s cost and the commissioning and
startup cost were allocated at 3% and 4% of the total module cost plus project contingency,
respectively. Table G3 summarizes this breakdown below:
J-1
Table J4: Total Fixed Capital Breakdown

Cost ($MM)
Total Bare Module Cost $7.16
Process Contingency $0
Contractual Fee $0.50
Total Module Cost $7.67
Project Contingency $3.07
Engineering/Procurement $1.93
Owner’s Cost $0.32
Commissioning and Startup $0.43
Total Fixed Capital $13.42
3. Working Capital Expenditure

The working capital cost of this project was estimated based on the amount of additional raw
materials and spare parts inventory required to keep the facility in operation. The recommended
range for working capital expenditure was 10 to 20% of the fixed capital expenditure (1). Since
the CO2 Removal Unit is relatively small, and the 125% capacity redesign does not add a
significant number of equipment, the working capital is chosen to be 10% of the total fixed capital,
which in this case is $1.34 MM. This percentage would be closer to 20% or even 30% if the raw
materials inventory was included as part of the scope and is expensive, the process produces a
diverse range of products, or if the plant itself is constructed using cheap materials such as cast
iron or carbon steel (1) (6). The loss in amine solution due to operation is also minimal, which also
justifies a smaller working capital estimation.
J-2
4. Operating Costs
This section includes the detailed calculations and assumptions done for the operating cost
estimation. Table J5 displays the breakdown of all operating cost components divided into direct,
indirect, and general expenses. Percentages from Ulrich & Vasudevan (2004) and
recommendations from Jamieson and Church (2015) were used to calculate the operating expenses
and adjust them based on the project.
4.1. Onstream Time

The onstream factor is calculated based on the annual planned shutdown of four weeks for
maintenance and cleaning purposes. This is the fraction of time that the plant is running at full
capacity. The calculated value for the onstream factor is:
𝑤𝑘𝑠 𝑤𝑘𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑢𝑡𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛

52 𝑦𝑟 − 4 48
𝑦𝑟
𝑂𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = = = 0.92
𝑤𝑘𝑠 52
52 𝑦𝑟
The corresponding onstream time in hours is:
ℎ ℎ
𝑂𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 0.92 × 8760 = 8059.2
𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟
4.2. Operating Labour

To calculate the direct manufacturing cost associated with operating labour, Table 6.2 from
Ulrich & Vasudevan (2004) was referenced to determined how many additional operators are
required per shift. Since a total of three additional heat exchangers are being added to the current
facility to facilitate the 125% capacity increase (one additional E-81 lean/rich amine exchanger
and E-85 which is two exchangers arranged in series), the number of additional operators per shift
J-3
is 0.15. Operators at CNRL work on a 7 day on 7 day off schedule, which translates into 24 shifts
per year when accounting for the annual four-week planned shutdown. Using an assumed operator
yearly salary of $100,000 CAD, the annual operating labour cost is:
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 = # 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠 × # 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 × 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦
𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 = 24 × 0.15 × $100,000 𝐶𝐴𝐷 = $360,000 𝐶𝐴𝐷
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡
4.3. Utilities
Table J5 displays the utility cost data provided by CNRL. Steam, amine, natural gas, and
cooling water utility costs were provided by CNRL, but steam was not included to the unchanging
steam flow to the E-82 stripper reboiler between each case.
Table J5: Utility Cost Data

Utility Unit Cost (C$)
Steam (tonne) 6.10
Amine (kg) 12.25
Natural Gas (GJ) 3.06
Cooling Water (m3/s) 0.07
Since the additional power required for the pumps and compressor units are provided by the
electricity generated onsite, the following equation from Table 6.3 in Ulrich & Vasudevan (2004)
is used to convert the natural gas price to the electricity price:
𝐶𝑆,𝑢 = 𝑎 × 𝐶𝐸𝑃𝐶𝐼 + 𝑏 × 𝐶𝑆,𝑓
Where CS,u is the unit price of electricity and CS,f is the unit price of the fuel used to generate the
electricity, which is natural gas. CEPCI is the current cost index of November 2018 which is 616.4.
J-4
Since CNRL is currently buying about 70MW off the Alberta power grid, the cost coefficients a
and b are taken as 0.00013 and 0.010, respectively from Table 6.3:
𝐶𝑆,𝑢 = 0.00013 × 616.4 + 0.010 × $3.06/𝐺𝐽 = $0.11/𝑘𝑊ℎ
Table J6 summarizes the additional utility costs for each case. The makeup amine was calculated
by taking the MDEA mass flowrate of streams 37, 75, and 96 since they are exiting the unit. This
amount was found to be 0.00006% of the total MDEA mass flow rate of stream 86, which was the
same percentage used in the 112% and 125% capacity redesigns to estimate makeup amine
requirements.
Table J6: Additional Utility Cost Summary

Additional Utilities
Base
111.60% 125%
Steam (tonne/s) N/A N/A N/A
Makeup Amine (kg/s) 0.000038 0.000002 0.000004
Electricity (kW) 5482.926934 622.738293 1151.422179
E-84 282.981084 282.981151
G-81 111.471406 8.936156 11.578975
G-82 1143.372144 14.681427 12.652463
G-83 1.148342 -0.008602 -0.120247
K-100 1487.751077 118.733474 343.284592
K-101 1414.627765 106.161664 284.993244
K-102 1324.556199 91.253090 216.052002
Cooling Water (m^3/s) 0.157351 0.012880 0.101344
Steam ($CAD/yr) N/A N/A N/A
Amine ($CAD/yr) $13,374.83 $582.55 $1,278.73
Electricity ($CAD/yr) $4,893,026.14 $555,738.71 $1,027,542.20
Cooling Water ($CAD/yr) $319,566.29 $26,158.79 $205,821.99
Table J7 summarizes the additional makeup amine requirements for the utility cost estimation:
J-5
Table J7: Additional Makeup Amine Summary

Base 112% 125%
Total amine flow (kg/s) 6.40E+01 6.68E+01 7.02E+01
Stream 37 1.23E-10 1.35E-10 8.00E-11
Stream 96 3.61E-05 2.85E-05 4.50E-05
Stream 75 1.55E-06 1.37E-06 9.93E-07
Percent Makeup 5.88E-07
Makeup amine (kg/s) 3.76E-05 3.93E-05 4.12E-05
Sample calculations for the additional utility costs for the 112% capacity increase are shown
below:
𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 × 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 × 𝑂𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒
For electricity, the additional power required for the E-84 air cooler, G-81A/B, G-82A/B/C, G-
83A/B pumps and the K-100, K-101, K-102 compressors is 623 kW. The additional electricity
cost is calculated as:
ℎ
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = $0.11/𝑘𝑊ℎ × 623 𝑘𝑊 × 8059.2 = $555,739 𝐶𝐴𝐷/𝑦𝑟
𝑦𝑟
The additional cooling water required to cool the E-80, E-83, and the three compressor stage
intercoolers is 46 m3/h. The additional cooling water cost is calculated as:
𝑚3 ℎ
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = $0.07/𝑚3 × 46 × 8059.2 = $26,159 𝐶𝐴𝐷/𝑦𝑟
ℎ 𝑦𝑟
The total additional utilities expense is then calculated as:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = $555,739 𝐶𝐴𝐷/𝑦𝑟 + $26,159 𝐶𝐴𝐷/𝑦𝑟 = $581,898 𝐶𝐴𝐷/𝑦𝑟
4.1. Remaining Expenses

The remaining direct, indirect, and general operating expenses are listed below:
J-6
• Supervisory labour is 15% of the operating labour.
• Maintenance costs amount to 2% of the fixed capital, due to the low number of additional
equipment that would need regular maintenance.
• Operating supplies are 15% of the maintenance cost.
• Laboratory charges are 15% of the operating labour cost.
• Assume no patents or royalties are involved in this project.
• Indirect overhead costs amount to 60% of the sum of operating labour, supervisory labour, and
maintenance costs.
• Local taxes are 2% of the fixed capital.
• Insurance is 1% of the fixed capital.
• Administrative costs are 25% of the overhead costs.
• Distribution and selling costs are 10% of the total manufacturing expense.
• Research and development costs are 5% of the total manufacturing expense.
J-7
Table J8: Operating Cost Summary for the 112% and 125% Capacity Increases
Expense 112% Case Annual Cost 125% Case Annual Cost
($MM) ($MM)
Fixed Capital $0 $13.42
Working Capital $0 $1.34
Total Capital $0 $14.76
Operating Labour $0 $0.36
Supervisory Labour $0 $0.05
Utilities $0.58 $1.24
Maintenance $0 $0.80
Operating Supplies $0 $0.12
Lab Charges $0 $0.05
Total Direct Expense $0.58 $2.63
Overhead $0 $0.73
Local Taxes $0 $0.27
Insurance $0 $0.13
Total Indirect Expense $0 $1.13
Administrative Costs $0 $0.18
Distribution and Selling $0.06 $0.38
Research and Development $0.03 $0.19
Total General Expense $0.09 $0.75
Total Operating Expense $0.67 $4.51
5. Discounted Cash Flows

Tables J9 to J12 display the full tabulated cash flow tables used to determine the project NPV
and IRR for each case. The discounted cash flow analysis for this project utilizes a corporate
discount rate of 15%, a hurdle rate of 20%, and a project life of 20 years. An inflation rate of 3%
and a provincial income tax rate of 27% was used. For the 125% cash flow analysis, the 2019 fiscal
values were used as the baseline despite the operations starting at 2022 as opposed to 2020, so the
estimation for this case may be less accurate than the 112% case. To account for this, a future
CEPCI value had to be assumed, which is very risky since the CEPCI depends on various economic
J-8
and societal factors and is therefore very unpredictable. The sample calculations for the 125%
capacity case during the initial investment and the first operating year are shown below:
𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 = −$13,415,989
This is the initial investment to the project made at year 0 and is presented as a negative or outwards
cash flow. The working capital is 10% of the fixed capital and is added as another negative cash
flow. The depreciated value during year 0 is equal to this initial investment.
𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 = −$1,341,599
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 0 = +$13,415,989
The cash flow for year 0 is:
𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 0 = 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 = −$13,415,989 − $1,341,599
= −$14,757,588
The annual manufacturing expense is calculated using the formula:
𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 = −𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 × (1 + 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)𝑛
Where n is the project year. The manufacturing expense for the first operating year is:
𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = −$4,511,307 × (1 + 0.03)1 = −$4,646,647
The annual revenue from sales is calculated using the formula:
𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 × (1 + 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)𝑛
The revenue for the first operating year is:
J-9
𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $5,085,222 × (1 + 0.03)1 = $5,237,779
The cash flow for year 1 is:
𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 + 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 = −$4,646,647 + $5,237,779
= +$591,132
The capital cost allowance (CCA) is required to calculate the depreciated value for this year. The
CCA depreciation rate for Asset Class 43 is 15% for the first year and 30% for every subsequent
year. The CCA is calculated using the following formula:
𝐶𝐶𝐴 = 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 × 𝐶𝐶𝐴 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
The CCA for year 1 is:
𝐶𝐶𝐴𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $13,415,989 × 0.15 = $2,012,398
The depreciated value for every year following the initial investment is calculated using the
following formula:
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 − 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
The depreciated value for year 1 is:
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $13,415,989 − $2,012,398 = +$11,403,590
Taxes can then be applied next. The annual taxable income is calculated using the formula:
𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 = 𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 − 𝐶𝐶𝐴
The taxable income for year 1 is:
J-10
𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $591,132 − $2,012,398 = −$1,421,266
Since the taxable income for the first operating year is negative, no taxes will be applied:
𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $0
If the taxable income is positive, then the following formula is used to calculate the taxes using an
income tax rate of 27%:
𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 = 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 × 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑥 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
The cash flow after taxes is simply the original cash flow plus the taxes:
𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 = 𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 + 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠
The cash flow after taxes for year 1 is:
𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $591,132 + $0 = +$591,132
The discount factor used to calculate the discounted cash flows is obtained using the following
formula, using a discount rate of 15%:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = (1 + 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)−𝑛
The discount factor for year 1 is:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = (1 + 0.15)−1 = 0.870
The discounted cash flow (DCF) is then calculated by multiplying the cash flow after taxes by the
discount rate:
𝐷𝐶𝐹 = 𝐶𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 × 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
J-11
The DCF for year 1 is:
𝐷𝐶𝐹𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 1 = $591,132 × 0.870 = +$514,028
The cumulative DCF can then be calculated using the following formula:
𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝐶𝐹 = 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝐶𝐹 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 + 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝐶𝐹
The cumulative DCF for year 0 is equal to the cash flow of that year. The cumulative DCF for year
1 is therefore:
𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝐶𝐹 = −$14,757,588 + $514,028 = −$14,243,560
J-12
Table J9: Discounted NPV Cash Flow Table for 112% Case
Fixed Capital $0
Working Capital $0
Total Operating Expense $669,182
Revenue From CO2 Production Sales $1,860,608
Inflation Rate 3.00% NPV $6,641,451 NPV Positive
Discount Rate 15.00%
Tax Rate 27.00%
Cash Flow Analysis
Other Cash
Total Flows CCA Capital Cost Discounted
Calendar Revenue Depreciated Taxable Cash Flow Discount Cumulative
Year Fixed Capital Manufacturing (including Cash Flow Depreciation Allowance Taxes Cash Flow
Year From Sales Value Income After Taxes Factor DCF
Expense working Rate (CCA) (DCF)
Capital)
2019 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 1.000 $0 $0
2020 1 -$689,258 $0 $1,916,426 $1,227,168 $0 15% 0 1,227,168 -331,335 895,833 0.870 $778,985 $778,985
2021 2 -$709,935 $0 $1,973,919 $1,263,983 $0 30% 0 1,263,983 -341,275 922,708 0.756 $697,700 $1,476,685
2022 3 -$731,233 $0 $2,033,136 $1,301,903 $0 30% 0 1,301,903 -351,514 950,389 0.658 $624,896 $2,101,581
2023 4 -$753,170 $0 $2,094,130 $1,340,960 $0 30% 0 1,340,960 -362,059 978,901 0.572 $559,690 $2,661,271
2024 5 -$775,765 $0 $2,156,954 $1,381,189 $0 30% 0 1,381,189 -372,921 1,008,268 0.497 $501,287 $3,162,558
2025 6 -$799,038 $0 $2,221,663 $1,422,624 $0 30% 0 1,422,624 -384,109 1,038,516 0.432 $448,979 $3,611,537
2026 7 -$823,010 $0 $2,288,313 $1,465,303 $0 30% 0 1,465,303 -395,632 1,069,671 0.376 $402,129 $4,013,666
2027 8 -$847,700 $0 $2,356,962 $1,509,262 $0 30% 0 1,509,262 -407,501 1,101,761 0.327 $360,168 $4,373,834
2028 9 -$873,131 $0 $2,427,671 $1,554,540 $0 30% 0 1,554,540 -419,726 1,134,814 0.284 $322,585 $4,696,419
2029 10 -$899,325 $0 $2,500,501 $1,601,176 $0 30% 0 1,601,176 -432,318 1,168,859 0.247 $288,924 $4,985,343
2030 11 -$926,305 $0 $2,575,516 $1,649,212 $0 30% 0 1,649,212 -445,287 1,203,924 0.215 $258,775 $5,244,118
2031 12 -$954,094 $0 $2,652,782 $1,698,688 $0 30% 0 1,698,688 -458,646 1,240,042 0.187 $231,773 $5,475,891
2032 13 -$982,717 $0 $2,732,365 $1,749,648 $0 30% 0 1,749,648 -472,405 1,277,243 0.163 $207,588 $5,683,479
2033 14 -$1,012,198 $0 $2,814,336 $1,802,138 $0 30% 0 1,802,138 -486,577 1,315,561 0.141 $185,926 $5,869,405
2034 15 -$1,042,564 $0 $2,898,766 $1,856,202 $0 30% 0 1,856,202 -501,175 1,355,028 0.123 $166,525 $6,035,930
2035 16 -$1,073,841 $0 $2,985,729 $1,911,888 $0 30% 0 1,911,888 -516,210 1,395,678 0.107 $149,149 $6,185,079
2036 17 -$1,106,056 $0 $3,075,301 $1,969,245 $0 30% 0 1,969,245 -531,696 1,437,549 0.093 $133,585 $6,318,665
2037 18 -$1,139,238 $0 $3,167,560 $2,028,322 $0 30% 0 2,028,322 -547,647 1,480,675 0.081 $119,646 $6,438,311
2038 19 -$1,173,415 $0 $3,262,587 $2,089,172 $0 30% 0 2,089,172 -564,076 1,525,095 0.070 $107,161 $6,545,472
2039 20 -$1,208,617 $0 $3,360,464 $2,151,847 $0 30% 0 2,151,847 -580,999 1,570,848 0.061 $95,979 $6,641,451
J-13
Table J10: Discounted IRR Cash Flow Table for 112% Case
Fixed Capital $0
Working Capital $0
Total Manufacturing Expense $669,182
Inflation Rate 3.00% NPV $0 NPV Zero
Tax Rate 27.00%
Cash Flow Analysis
Other Cash
Total Flows Capital Cost Discounted
Calendar Revenue Depreciated CCA Depreciation Taxable Cash Flow Discount Cumulative
Year Fixed Capital Manufacturing (including Cash Flow Allowance Taxes Cash Flow
Year From Sales Value Rate Income After Taxes Factor DCF
Expense working (CCA) (DCF)
Capital)
2019 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 1.000 $0 $0
2020 1 -$689,258 $0 $1,916,426 $1,227,168 $0 15% 0 1,227,168 -331,335 895,833 0.000 $0 $0
2021 2 -$709,935 $0 $1,973,919 $1,263,983 $0 30% 0 1,263,983 -341,275 922,708 0.000 $0 $0
2022 3 -$731,233 $0 $2,033,136 $1,301,903 $0 30% 0 1,301,903 -351,514 950,389 0.000 $0 $0
2023 4 -$753,170 $0 $2,094,130 $1,340,960 $0 30% 0 1,340,960 -362,059 978,901 0.000 $0 $0
2024 5 -$775,765 $0 $2,156,954 $1,381,189 $0 30% 0 1,381,189 -372,921 1,008,268 0.000 $0 $0
2025 6 -$799,038 $0 $2,221,663 $1,422,624 $0 30% 0 1,422,624 -384,109 1,038,516 0.000 $0 $0
2026 7 -$823,010 $0 $2,288,313 $1,465,303 $0 30% 0 1,465,303 -395,632 1,069,671 0.000 $0 $0
2027 8 -$847,700 $0 $2,356,962 $1,509,262 $0 30% 0 1,509,262 -407,501 1,101,761 0.000 $0 $0
2028 9 -$873,131 $0 $2,427,671 $1,554,540 $0 30% 0 1,554,540 -419,726 1,134,814 0.000 $0 $0
2029 10 -$899,325 $0 $2,500,501 $1,601,176 $0 30% 0 1,601,176 -432,318 1,168,859 0.000 $0 $0
2030 11 -$926,305 $0 $2,575,516 $1,649,212 $0 30% 0 1,649,212 -445,287 1,203,924 0.000 $0 $0
2031 12 -$954,094 $0 $2,652,782 $1,698,688 $0 30% 0 1,698,688 -458,646 1,240,042 0.000 $0 $0
2032 13 -$982,717 $0 $2,732,365 $1,749,648 $0 30% 0 1,749,648 -472,405 1,277,243 0.000 $0 $0
2033 14 -$1,012,198 $0 $2,814,336 $1,802,138 $0 30% 0 1,802,138 -486,577 1,315,561 0.000 $0 $0
2034 15 -$1,042,564 $0 $2,898,766 $1,856,202 $0 30% 0 1,856,202 -501,175 1,355,028 0.000 $0 $0
2035 16 -$1,073,841 $0 $2,985,729 $1,911,888 $0 30% 0 1,911,888 -516,210 1,395,678 0.000 $0 $0
2036 17 -$1,106,056 $0 $3,075,301 $1,969,245 $0 30% 0 1,969,245 -531,696 1,437,549 0.000 $0 $0
2037 18 -$1,139,238 $0 $3,167,560 $2,028,322 $0 30% 0 2,028,322 -547,647 1,480,675 0.000 $0 $0
2038 19 -$1,173,415 $0 $3,262,587 $2,089,172 $0 30% 0 2,089,172 -564,076 1,525,095 0.000 $0 $0
2039 20 -$1,208,617 $0 $3,360,464 $2,151,847 $0 30% 0 2,151,847 -580,999 1,570,848 0.000 $0 $0
J-14
Table J11: Discounted NPV Cash Flow Table for 125% Case
Fixed Capital $14,891,485
Working Capital $1,489,148
Total Operating Expense $4,753,658
Inflation Rate 3.00% NPV -$13,954,568 NPV Negative
Tax Rate 27.00%
Cash Flow Analysis
Other Cash
Total Flows CCA Capital Cost
Calendar Revenue Depreciated Taxable Cash Flow After Discount Discounted
Year Fixed Capital Manufacturing (including Cash Flow Depreciation Allowance Taxes Cumulative DCF
Year From Sales Value Income Taxes Factor Cash Flow (DCF)
Expense working Rate (CCA)
Capital)
2020 0 -14,891,485 0 -1,489,148 0 -16,380,633 14,891,485 -16,380,633 1.000 -$16,380,633 -$16,380,633
2021 1 -4,896,267 0 5,237,779 341,512 12,657,762 15% 2,233,723 -1,892,211 0 341,512 0.870 $296,967 -$16,083,667
2022 2 -5,043,155 0 5,394,912 351,757 8,860,434 30% 3,797,329 -3,445,572 0 351,757 0.756 $265,979 -$15,817,688
2023 3 -5,194,450 0 5,556,760 362,310 6,202,303 30% 2,658,130 -2,295,820 0 362,310 0.658 $238,224 -$15,579,464
2024 4 -5,350,284 0 5,723,462 373,179 4,341,612 30% 1,860,691 -1,487,512 0 373,179 0.572 $213,366 -$15,366,097
2025 5 -5,510,792 0 5,895,166 384,374 3,039,129 30% 1,302,484 -918,109 0 384,374 0.497 $191,102 -$15,174,995
2026 6 -5,676,116 0 6,072,021 395,906 2,127,390 30% 911,739 -515,833 0 395,906 0.432 $171,161 -$15,003,834
2027 7 -5,846,399 0 6,254,182 407,783 1,489,173 30% 638,217 -230,434 0 407,783 0.376 $153,301 -$14,850,534
2028 8 -6,021,791 0 6,441,807 420,016 1,042,421 30% 446,752 -26,736 0 420,016 0.327 $137,304 -$14,713,230
2029 9 -6,202,445 0 6,635,062 432,617 729,695 30% 312,726 119,890 -32,370 400,246 0.284 $113,775 -$14,599,455
2030 10 -6,388,518 0 6,834,114 445,595 510,786 30% 218,908 226,687 -61,205 384,390 0.247 $95,015 -$14,504,440
2031 11 -6,580,174 0 7,039,137 458,963 357,550 30% 153,236 305,727 -82,546 376,417 0.215 $80,908 -$14,423,531
2032 12 -6,777,579 0 7,250,311 472,732 250,285 30% 107,265 365,467 -98,676 374,056 0.187 $69,914 -$14,353,618
2033 13 -6,980,906 0 7,467,820 486,914 175,200 30% 75,086 411,828 -111,194 375,720 0.163 $61,065 -$14,292,553
2034 14 -7,190,334 0 7,691,855 501,521 122,640 30% 52,560 448,961 -121,220 380,302 0.141 $53,748 -$14,238,805
2035 15 -7,406,044 0 7,922,611 516,567 85,848 30% 36,792 479,775 -129,539 387,028 0.123 $47,564 -$14,191,241
2036 16 -7,628,225 0 8,160,289 532,064 60,094 30% 25,754 506,310 -136,704 395,360 0.107 $42,250 -$14,148,991
2037 17 -7,857,072 0 8,405,098 548,026 42,065 30% 18,028 529,998 -143,099 404,926 0.093 $37,628 -$14,111,363
2038 18 -8,092,784 0 8,657,251 564,467 29,446 30% 12,620 551,847 -148,999 415,468 0.081 $33,572 -$14,077,791
2039 19 -8,335,567 0 8,916,968 581,401 20,612 30% 8,834 572,567 -154,593 426,808 0.070 $29,990 -$14,047,801
2040 20 -8,585,634 1,489,148 9,184,477 2,087,991 14,428 30% 6,184 2,081,808 -562,088 1,525,903 0.061 $93,233 -$13,954,568
J-15
Table J12: Discounted IRR Cash Flow Table for 125% Case
Fixed Capital $14,891,485
Working Capital $2,233,723
Total Manufacturing Expense $4,753,658
Inflation Rate 3.00% NPV $0 NPV Zero
Discount Rate -4.42%
Tax Rate 27.00%
Cash Flow Analysis
Other Cash
Total Flows CCA Capital Cost
Calendar Revenue Depreciated Taxable Cash Flow Discount Discounted
Year Fixed Capital Manufacturing (including Cash Flow Depreciation Allowance Taxes Cumulative DCF
Year From Sales Value Income After Taxes Factor Cash Flow (DCF)
Expense working Rate (CCA)
Capital)
2020 0 -14,891,485 0 -2,233,723 0 -17,125,208 14,891,485 -17,125,208 1.000 -$17,125,208 -$17,125,208
2021 1 -4,896,267 0 5,237,779 341,512 12,657,762 15% 2,233,723 -1,892,211 0 341,512 1.046 $357,290 -$16,767,918
2022 2 -5,043,155 0 5,394,912 351,757 8,860,434 30% 3,797,329 -3,445,572 0 351,757 1.095 $385,012 -$16,382,906
2023 3 -5,194,450 0 5,556,760 362,310 6,202,303 30% 2,658,130 -2,295,820 0 362,310 1.145 $414,884 -$15,968,022
2024 4 -5,350,284 0 5,723,462 373,179 4,341,612 30% 1,860,691 -1,487,512 0 373,179 1.198 $447,074 -$15,520,949
2025 5 -5,510,792 0 5,895,166 384,374 3,039,129 30% 1,302,484 -918,109 0 384,374 1.253 $481,761 -$15,039,187
2026 6 -5,676,116 0 6,072,021 395,906 2,127,390 30% 911,739 -515,833 0 395,906 1.311 $519,140 -$14,520,047
2027 7 -5,846,399 0 6,254,182 407,783 1,489,173 30% 638,217 -230,434 0 407,783 1.372 $559,419 -$13,960,628
2028 8 -6,021,791 0 6,441,807 420,016 1,042,421 30% 446,752 -26,736 0 420,016 1.435 $602,823 -$13,357,804
2029 9 -6,202,445 0 6,635,062 432,617 729,695 30% 312,726 119,890 -32,370 400,246 1.502 $600,990 -$12,756,815
2030 10 -6,388,518 0 6,834,114 445,595 510,786 30% 218,908 226,687 -61,205 384,390 1.571 $603,847 -$12,152,968
2031 11 -6,580,174 0 7,039,137 458,963 357,550 30% 153,236 305,727 -82,546 376,417 1.644 $618,642 -$11,534,325
2032 12 -6,777,579 0 7,250,311 472,732 250,285 30% 107,265 365,467 -98,676 374,056 1.719 $643,165 -$10,891,160
2033 13 -6,980,906 0 7,467,820 486,914 175,200 30% 75,086 411,828 -111,194 375,720 1.799 $675,875 -$10,215,285
2034 14 -7,190,334 0 7,691,855 501,521 122,640 30% 52,560 448,961 -121,220 380,302 1.882 $715,724 -$9,499,561
2035 15 -7,406,044 0 7,922,611 516,567 85,848 30% 36,792 479,775 -129,539 387,028 1.969 $762,035 -$8,737,527
2036 16 -7,628,225 0 8,160,289 532,064 60,094 30% 25,754 506,310 -136,704 395,360 2.060 $814,407 -$7,923,120
2037 17 -7,857,072 0 8,405,098 548,026 42,065 30% 18,028 529,998 -143,099 404,926 2.155 $872,650 -$7,050,470
2038 18 -8,092,784 0 8,657,251 564,467 29,446 30% 12,620 551,847 -148,999 415,468 2.255 $936,735 -$6,113,735
2039 19 -8,335,567 0 8,916,968 581,401 20,612 30% 8,834 572,567 -154,593 426,808 2.359 $1,006,762 -$5,106,973
2040 20 -8,585,634 2,233,723 9,184,477 2,832,565 14,428 30% 6,184 2,826,382 -763,123 2,069,442 2.468 $5,106,973 $0
J-16
6. Sensitivity Analyses
The fixed capital, operating cost, cooling water and electricity price, onstream time, CO 2
product price, and GHG emissions credit price were all varied to determine their sensitivities
towards the project NPV and IRR for 125% capacity increase. The same factors were varied for
the 112% case, minus the fixed capital.
6.1. 112% Case

For this option the varied parameters are the operating cost, natural gas and cooling water
utility prices, onstream factor, CO2 selling price per tonne, and the GHG emission credit price.
The CO2 selling price was varied using the range of $12 - $35 /tCO2 obtained from the Global
CCS Institute (7). The analysis investigates the possibility of the GHG emission credit price rising
to $50 /tCO2e due to Alberta opting into the federal climate plan, and this value was therefore set
as the upper limit. All other parameters were given a variation of 10% aside from the onstream
factor, which was varied by 5%. Since a proper IRR was not able to be obtained for this case, the
sensitivity analysis was not performed. The sensitivity analysis summary is presented in Table
J13 below:
J-17
Table J13: Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Variation Summary for 112% Case
111.6% Case
Variable (+/- 10%) Lower Limit Base Upper Limit
Operating Cost $602,264 $669,182 $736,100
Natural Gas Price $2.75 $3.06 $3.37
Cooling Water Price $0.06 $0.07 $0.08
Onstream Factor (+/- 5%) 0.87 0.92 0.97
CO2 selling price ($CAD/tonne) $11.97 $23.28 $34.58
GHG emissions credits ($CAD/tonne CO2e) $30.00 $30.00 $50.00
NPV (10% Discount Rate) IRR
Variable Lower Limit Base Upper Limit Lower Limit Base Upper Limit
Operating Cost $7,014,478 $6,641,451 $6,268,426 N/A N/A N/A
Natural Gas Price $6,741,188 $6,641,451 $6,541,715 N/A N/A N/A
Cooling Water Price $6,665,407 $6,641,451 $6,617,496 N/A N/A N/A
Onstream Factor (+/- 5%) $6,844,184 $6,641,451 $6,438,719 N/A N/A N/A
CO2 selling price ($CAD/tonne) $4,440,563 $6,641,451 $8,842,340 N/A N/A N/A
GHG emissions credits ($CAD/tonne CO2e) $6,641,451 $6,641,451 $10,535,106 N/A N/A N/A
6.2. 125% Case

This option varies the same parameters as the 112% with fixed capital as an additional
parameter. The parameters were varied the in the same manner for this case. The sensitivity
analysis summary is presented in Table J14 below:
Table J14: Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Variation Summary for 125% Case
125% Case
Variable (+/- 10%) Lower Limit Base Upper Limit
Fixed Capital $12,074,390 $13,415,989 $14,757,588
Operating Cost $4,060,177 $4,511,307 $4,962,438
Natural Gas Price $2.75 $3.06 $3.37
Cooling Water Price $0.06 $0.07 $0.08
Onstream Factor (+/- 5%) 0.87 0.92 0.97
CO2 selling price ($CAD/tonne) $11.97 $23.28 $34.58
GHG emissions credits ($CAD/tonne CO2e) $30.00 $30.00 $50.00
NPV (10% discount rate) IRR
Variable Lower Limit Base Upper Limit Lower Limit Base Upper Limit
Fixed Capital -$9,251,204 -$10,706,078 -$12,160,953 0.45% -0.38% -1.10%
Operating Cost -$7,734,509 -$10,706,078 -$13,802,945 4.78% -0.38% -8.55%
Natural Gas Price -$10,484,580 -$10,706,078 -$10,927,577 0.05% -0.38% -0.83%
Cooling Water Price -$10,479,678 -$10,706,078 -$10,932,479 0.06% -0.38% -0.84%
Onstream Factor (+/- 5%) -$10,189,952 -$10,706,078 -$11,222,205 0.62% -0.38% -1.45%
CO2 selling price ($CAD/tonne) -$18,540,175 -$10,706,078 -$3,743,669 -0.38% 10.38%
GHG emissions credits ($CAD/tonne CO2e) -$10,706,078 -$10,706,078 $1,239,797 -0.38% -0.38% 16.44%
J-18
7. References
97087683-2-3.
2. Live Exchange Rates. OANDA Corporation. [Online]
https://www.oanda.com/currency/live-exchange-rates/USDCAD/.
3. Chemical Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering Essentials for the CPI Professional.
[Online] https://www.chemengonline.com/2019-cepci-updates-january-prelim-and-
december-2018-final/.
5. Jamieson & Church. Contingency Estimating. Edmonton, AB, Canada : s.n., 2015.
6. Towler & Sinnott. Chemical Engineering Design - Principles, Practice and Economics of
Plant and Process Design. s.l. : Elsevier, 2013.
7. Global CCS Institute. Accelerating the Uptake of CCS: Industrial Use of Captured Carbon
Dioxide. 2011.
J-19
Appendix K: Project Management Schedule

Description
This appendix contains the detailed calculations done to obtain the DFL and engineering
costs and hours required for the development of capital expenditure and manpower profiles. These
profiles are based off the durations outlined in the project execution plan developed for the 125%
case. This appendix is not applicable to the 112% case, as no project execution plan was developed.
Unless specified otherwise, all costs and prices are expressed in Canadian dollars ($C).
Table of Contents
1. DFL Cost and Hours ............................................................................................................. K-1
2. Engineering Cost and Hours ................................................................................................. K-3
3. Manpower Profile ................................................................................................................. K-4
4. Reference .............................................................................................................................. K-7
i
1. DFL Cost and Hours

The DFL hours were calculated using the method outlined by Jamieson and Church (2015)
(1). The total DFL cost was obtained by summing the products of the total DFL factor and purchase
cost of each equipment. The process and project contingencies of 0% and 40%, respectively, were
then applied onto this value. The DFL cost for this project is summarized in Table K1 below:
Table K1: DFL Cost Summary

Unit Equipment Cost DFL Factor DFL Cost
($MM)
E-81C $0.59 1.08 $0.64
E-85A/B $0.55 0.84 $0.47
C-83 $0.87 2.53 $2.21
C-87 $0.28 1.70 $0.47
C-80 Packing $0.74 0.05 $0.04
C-82 Packing $1.06 0.05 $0.05
Total ($MM) $3.88
Process Contingency (0%) $0
Project Contingency (40%) $1.55
Total DFL Cost ($MM) $5.43
The current labourer salaries for the Fort McMurray region were obtained from Living In
Canada.com and Indeed.com (2) (3). Using the presentation on Project Labour Estimates and
Project Planning as a guideline, a payroll burden factor of 1.75 was chosen to account for the
employer’s contribution to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), employment insurance (EI), company
pension plan, health benefits, and life insurance on behalf of the employee (1). This factor is
applied to the calculated average hourly rate received by the labourer in order to obtain the total
DFL hourly rate. Table K2 summarizes the assumed worker distribution and rates for the
calculation of DFL hours:
K-1
Table K2: Labourer Rates and Hours

Trade Number of Workers Hourly Rate (C$)
Crane Operator 1 $44.00
Crane supporter 4 $30.00
Pipe Fitter 9 $42.12
Column Technician 10 $26.00
Instrument Technician 10 $41.57
Welder 4 $39.24
Average Hourly Wage $36.20
Total Number of Workers 38
Payroll Burden Factor 1.75
DFL Hourly Rate $63.36
Total DFL Hours 85717
The hourly wages were calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑔𝑒
$44.00 + 4($30.00) + 9($42.12) + 10($26.00) + 10($41.57) + 4($39.24)

=
38
= $36.20/ℎ
𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑔𝑒 ∗ 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = $36.20 ∗ 1.75
= $63.36/ℎ
The total DFL hours was calculated by dividing the total DFL cost by the DFL hourly rate:
𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 $5,430,747

𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = = = 85717 𝑚𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 $63.36
Based on the correlation presented in Guthrie (1974), this number of manhours indicates an
approximate construction duration of 7 months (4).
K-2
Figure K1: Field Duration vs. Direct Labour Manhour Correlation from Guthrie (1974)
2. Engineering Cost and Hours

The engineering cost was taken as combination of the 18% of the total module capital plus
the project contingencies and the 3% owner’s cost. The calculation of the engineering hours uses
a similar method as the DFL hour calculation. The current wages for engineers were obtained from
Alis.com (5). Table K3 summarizes the assumed distribution and rates of the engineering
workforce in this project:
K-3
Table K3: Engineering Rates and Hours

Discipline Number of Workers Hourly Rate (C$)
Civil/Structural 5 $50.43
Chemical 5 $52.20
Mechanical 5 $52.87
Electrical 5 $48.35
Average Hourly Wage $50.96
Total Number of Workers 20
Payroll Burden Factor 1.75
DFL Hourly Rate $89.18
Total Engineering Hours 35381
The hourly wages were calculated as follows:
5($50.43) + 5($52.20) + 5($52.87) + 5($48.35)

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑔𝑒 = = $50.96/ℎ
20
𝐷𝐹𝐿 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑔𝑒 ∗ 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = $50.96 ∗ 1.75
= $89.18/ℎ
The total engineering hours was calculated by dividing the total engineering cost by the
engineering hourly rate:
𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 $5,430,747

𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = = = 35381 𝑚𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 $89.18
3. Manpower Profile
Tables K4 and K5 summarize the prescribed labour and engineering manpower
distributions, respectively, throughout the project timeline. Each distribution is based upon the
dates and durations outlined in the project execution plan. The tradesmen are assumed to be
working on 14 day on 2 day off shifts with 12 hour days. This totals up to approximately 336
K-4
working hours per month. The engineers are assumed to be working on 40 hour weeks, totaling up
to approximately 160 working hours per month.
Table K4: Labour Hour Distribution

Period Fraction of Total Hours Hours per Month
Mar 2021 0.05 4286
Apr 2021 0.1 8572
May – Aug 2021 0.4 8572
Sept – Oct 2021 0.3 12858
Nov 2021 0.1 8572
Dec 2021 0.05 4286
Table K5: Engineering Hour Distribution

Period Fraction of Total Hours Hours per Month
Jan – Apr 2020 0.05 442
May – Aug 2020 0.3 2654
Sept 2020 – Mar 2021 0.4 2022
Apr -Sept 2021 0.15 885
Oct 2021 0.05 1769
Nov 2021 0.03 1061
Dec 2021 0.02 708
4. Capital Expenditure Profile

The capital expenditure profile is divided into engineering, procurement, and construction
portions. The engineering cost is assumed to encompass the cost of procurement. Figure K2
presents the capital expenditure profile throughout the project timeline.
K-5
$900,000 10,000,000
$800,000 Engineering & Procurement 9,000,000
Cumulative Capital Expenditure (C$)

Construction 8,000,000
$700,000
Capital Expenditure (C$)
Cumulative 7,000,000
$600,000
6,000,000
$500,000
5,000,000
$400,000
4,000,000
$300,000
3,000,000
$200,000
2,000,000
$100,000 1,000,000
$0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Number of Months
Figure K2: Capital Expenditure Profile
K-6
5. Reference
1. Jamieson & Church. Project Labour Estimates and Project Planning. Edmonton, AB,
Canada : s.n., 2015.
2. Average Salary in Canada. Living in Canada. [Online] https://www.livingin-
canada.com/work-salaries-wages-canada.html.
3. Find Salaries. Indeed. [Online]
https://ca.indeed.com/salaries?from=headercmplink&attributionid=.
5. Wages and Salaries. Alis. [Online] https://alis.alberta.ca/occinfo/wages-and-salaries-in-
alberta/.
K-7
Appendix L: Safety and Risk Assessments

Description
This Appendix contains the safety and risk assessments completed for the Revamp of CO 2
recovery plant project and identifies process hazards and their mitigation strategies. The
application of Inherently Safer Design principles, completed checklist-based risk analysis, What
If? Analysis on the process flow diagram, Hazard and Operability Study for the new heat
exchanger (E-85) P&ID, and the DOW Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) and Chemical Exposure
Index (CEI) can all be found in this Appendix.
Table of Contents
1. Inherently Safer Design (ISD) Principles ..............................................................................L-1
1.1. Simplify ..........................................................................................................................L-1
1.2. Moderate .........................................................................................................................L-1
1.3. Minimize ........................................................................................................................L-2
1.4. Substitution .....................................................................................................................L-2
2. Hazard Identification Checklist .............................................................................................L-2
2.1. Base Case Checklist .......................................................................................................L-3
2.2. 112% Case Checklist ......................................................................................................L-5
2.3. 125% Case Checklist ......................................................................................................L-7
3. PHA and HAZOP Methodology ............................................................................................L-9
3.1. Assumptions .................................................................................................................L-12
4. What If? Analysis ................................................................................................................L-13
4.1. Overview ......................................................................................................................L-13
4.2. Node Definition ............................................................................................................L-13
4.3. Node and Equipment Summary ...................................................................................L-15
4.4. Base Case What If? Analysis Results...........................................................................L-18
4.5. 112% and 125% Redesign Cases What If? Analysis Results ......................................L-36
4.5.1. 112% Redesign Case Recommendations ...............................................................L-36
i
4.5.2. 125% Redesign Case Recommendations ...............................................................L-37

5. HAZOP Analysis .................................................................................................................L-38
5.1. Overview ......................................................................................................................L-38
5.2. HAZOP Results ............................................................................................................L-38
5.3. List of Recommendations and Implications .................................................................L-42
6. Dow Fire and Explosion Index ............................................................................................L-43
7. Dow Chemical Exposure Index ...........................................................................................L-65
7.1. Sample calculations for the Chemical Exposure Index ................................................L-65
8. Applicable Safety Regulations and Code Requirements .....................................................L-68
8.1. Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation ........................................................................L-68
8.2. Electrical Code .............................................................................................................L-69
8.3. Plumbing Code .............................................................................................................L-69
8.4. Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act....................................................L-69
8.5. Fire Code ......................................................................................................................L-70
8.6. Canada Labour Code ....................................................................................................L-70
List of References ......................................................................................................................L-71
ii
1. Inherently Safer Design (ISD) Principles

Inherently safe designs are those that aim to avoid hazards instead of controlling them. The
minimize, substitute, moderate, and simplify ISD principles were considered for this project and
the findings are outlined below. However, it was determined that there were minimal ISD
principles that could be applied to this project, since the project is brownfield and the technology
is already very well understood.
1.1. Simplify
The client had requested the capacity redesigns to be made with minimal pump-arounds and
equipment modifications. Thus, the solution for the 112% was achieved through the optimization
of operating conditions and utility requirements alone. For the 125% redesign case, several
equipment additions and modifications were made. However, the changes were relatively simple.
For columns, the random packing was changed to a different type. The increased duty of the
lean/rich amine exchangers (E-81 A/B) was achieved by adding another plate and frame exchanger
with the same specifications as existing ones. The new lean amine cooler (E-85) is a shell and tube
heat exchanger which is very widely used and understood in industry. Finally, the Reflux Vessel
(C-83) and Absorber Overhead K.O Drum (C-87) were simply redesigned with a larger diameter
to achieve the required separation. There are no major equipment overhauls or complex changes
required to implement the selected solution.
1.2. Moderate
To achieve the required CO2 recovery for the 112% redesign, and 125% redesign cases, it was
found that most of the streams could operate at more moderate conditions than the design case.
L-1
This can be seen when comparing the temperatures and pressures on the stream tables between the
different cases. The main exception to this observation is the flow rate of the process streams,
which was consistently raised across the redesign cases.
1.3. Minimize
There are no vessels within the facility designed to store large volumes of chemicals aside from
the amine make-up vessel. This vessel is designed with enough capacity to store the whole solution
inventory of the unit in case of maintenance. Since the increase in flow rate of the process streams
was unavoidable to meet the project design criteria, no minimize ISD principles were found to be
applicable for this project.
1.4. Substitution
Different amine solutions were researched to see if there were safer alternatives to MDEA.
However, it was discovered that MDEA had several processing advantages over other amine
solution alternatives such as diethanolamine (DEA), monoethanolamine (MEA),
diisopropanolamine (DIPA) and diglycolamine (DGA), which are known to be more corrosive
(1). No substitution ISD principles were found to be applicable for this project.
2. Hazard Identification Checklist

A hazard identification checklist was created for the base case, 112% redesign, and 125%
redesign cases. To avoid redundancy, only additional hazards resulting from the design have
been considered in the 112% and 125% design cases.
L-2
2.1. Base Case Checklist
Q1: Could the design result in… Q1 Event? Q2 Hazard? Explain Q1 what? and Q2 why?
Q2: If yes, could this result in a hazard? Yes No Yes No
Situations where equipment (vessel, heat exchanger, pump, Distillation Columns: Over
etc.) fails to carry out it’s intended duty? What happens? pressurization which results in
rupture
Separators: Over pressurization
which results in rupture
Heat Exchanger: Blockage causing
leaking or liquid spray. Tube leaks
Pump: Cavitation, overheating,
motor runout, deadhead or
hydraulic surge can result in
equipment damage, explosion
and/or leakage.
Compressors: Compressor surge
or excessive vibration can result,
equipment damage, fire, explosion,
and/or leakage
Valves: Seals fail or valves
become fouled or corroded,
resulting in leaks
Over pressure? Vacuum conditions? Equipment could explode and
result in injury or death
High flow? Low flow? High flow: Poor separation in
distillation columns and separation
vessels. Potential for spills, flanges
bursting, or equipment rupturing
Low flow: Surge in compressors or
pumps, resulting equipment
damage, explosion, and/or leakage
High temperature? Low Temperature? Temperatures of process fluids
range from approximately 34°C to
113.5°C. Risks for burns from
equipment ruptures or fluid leaks
Phase change? Multiple condensers and a reboiler
present in the process
Reaction? Other reactions? The absorption of CO2 with lean
amine solution is an exothermic
reaction. The temperature of the
amine should be kept below 180°C
to ensure the amine does not
degrade
Process upset condition? Process upsets could result in any
number of changes to operating
conditions for the various
equipment in the facility. The
equipment should be designed to
withstand a wide range of
conditions it may experience during
standard and upset conditions.
Heat transfer? Heat exchangers have the
potential to foul which results in
less efficient heat transfer. If
fouling goes on for long enough,
complete tube plugging may occur
L-3
which could result in leaking or

liquid spray
Other energy transfer? (specify) Electricity: Potential for shorting out
of equipment or electrocution
Solid formation? Aggregation? How did it form? Fouling of heat exchangers that
plug the tube sheets and reduce
heat transfer effectiveness. If tubes
plug entirely, there is risk of over
pressurization
Liquid formation? Condensation? How did it form?
Gas formation? Boiling? How did it form? Lean amine from LP Flash Stripper
is ~113.5°C and is heated from the
reboiler. High temperatures could
cause burns if this fluid leaks. Build
up of toxic gases such as MDEA
and CO may cause asphyxiation or
other negative health
consequences for workers
Control problems? Temperature? Process temperatures must be
monitored and controlled to ensure
effective operation of process
equipment and to ensure over
heating or equipment failure does
not occur
Pressure? Pressure must be monitored and
controlled to ensure equipment is
operating under their maximum
allowable working pressure and so
that equipment does not rupture or
otherwise fail
Flow? Flow must be controlled to
eliminate possible flange, seal and
equipment rupturing.
Level? Level of storage vessels must be
monitored and controlled to ensure
that over-filling and spills do not
occur
Composition?
Interface?
Loss of Containment? Syngas loss of containment could
result in fire or explosion. Release
of toxic gases may harm nearby
workers.
Flow problems? Backflow? Backflow into pumps,
compressors, columns, or storage
vessels could result in ineffective
operation and worst case severe
equipment damage or failure
Surge? Surge in the pumps or
compressors could result in
equipment damage, explosions
and/or leakage
Two phase? Compressors deal poorly with
liquids and solids in gas streams.
Multiple knockout drums and reflux
vessels are used in the process
design to separate these phases
L-4
Erosion? Amine filter to remove particulates.

Assume pipe has been designed
for optimal velocity in the base
Corrosion? Material of construction issues? Piperazine is corrosive. A high
concentration would result in better
absorption of CO2 but would also
corrode the piping and equipment
faster. Materials of construction
should be carefully selected. Piping
and other equipment should be
frequently inspected
Contaminants? Fines in the semilean solution are
routed through a filter
Temperature limitations? Differential expansion? Equipment maximum operating
temperature should not be
exceeded to ensure equipment
works as designed
Fire? Syngas is highly flammable and
may catch fire if there is loss of
containment and an ignition source
Explosion? Explosion could occur due to
different equipment failures. This
hazard
Toxic Release? Asphyxiation? MDEA and CO are toxic
substances. Leakages would affect
the health of nearby workers.
Radiation?
Noise? Level expected? Equipment will generate noise.
More noise than expected when
not operating under ideal
conditions. Workers should have
proper hearing protection when
working in the area.
Pollution Contaminants? Air? Unless the process is enclosed
and has adequate ventilation, gas
leaks will be released to the
atmosphere and contaminate the
surrounding air
Water? Loss of containment of process
fluids may contaminate nearby
water sources if secondary
containment measures are not
employed
Soil? Loss of containment of process
fluids may contaminate nearby soil
if secondary containment
measures are not employed
2.2. 112% Case Checklist
Q1: Could the design result in... Q1 Event? Q2 Hazard? Explain Q1 what? and Q2 why?
Situations where equipment (vessel, heat exchanger, pump, No new hazards
etc.) fails to carry out it’s intended duty? What happens?
L-5
Over pressure? Vacuum conditions? No new hazards

High flow? Low flow? The 112% design case involves an
increase in feed flow rate. This
increased flow rate affect operator
reaction time for alarms as well as
flow rates through the process
piping.
High temperature? Low Temperature? Stream temperatures generally
decrease as a result of the
operating condition changes. The
highest simulated stream
temperature for the 112% case is
113.7C, and the lowest
temperature is 34.0C. No new
hazards.
Phase change? No new hazards
Reaction? Other reactions? No new hazards
Process upset condition? Since the 112% design case has
increased flow rates, it will change
the range of conditions that the
equipment may experience.
Therefore, it is necessary to test
and re calibrate the equipment to
ensure that the wide range of
conditions can be managed.
Heat transfer? No new hazards
Other energy transfer? (specify) The 112% design case involved an
increase in energy input. It is
important to make sure that the
equipment is capable of handling
the increased energy input.
Solid formation? Aggregation? How did it form? No new hazards
Liquid formation? Condensation? How did it form? N/A
Gas formation? Boiling? How did it form? No new hazards
Control problems? Temperature? The 112% design case often has
lower temperatures than the base
case so the likelihood of
overheating the equipment is
decreased.
Pressure? Due to the increased flowrate, the
risk of over pressure is increased.
It its important to monitor and
control the equipment to ensure
that it does not rupture or fail
during operation.
Flow? The increase in flowrate would
affect the reaction time for the
alarms and level controls within the
system. If the flowrate is at a high
enough rate that a vessel could fill
up before the level control alarms
could indicate, it could pose a
problem.
Level? The CO2 absorber, LP Flash
Stripper, and several other process
vessels have level controllers
attached. Due to the increased flow
L-6
rate, the reaction time to respond

to alarms would be reduced.
Composition? N/A
Interface? N/A
Loss of Containment? No new hazards
Flow problems? Backflow? No new hazards
Surge? No new hazards
Two phase? No new hazards
Erosion? Higher flow rates may increase the
velocity of fluid in the piping,
causing more erosion
Corrosion? Material of construction issues? Potentially increased erosion in
pipes due to increased velocity
Contaminants? No new hazards
Temperature limitations? Differential expansion? No new hazards
Fire? No new hazards
Explosion? No new hazards
Toxic Release? Asphyxiation? No new hazards
Radiation? N/A
Noise? Level expected? Equipment running at higher
throughput may generate
additional noise. Re-evaluate
hearing protection requirements if
necessary
Pollution Contaminants? Air? No new hazards
Water? No new hazards
Soil? No new hazards
2.3. 125% Case Checklist
Q1: Could the design result in... Q1 Event? Q2 Hazard? Explain Q1 what? and Q2 why?
Situations where equipment (vessel, heat exchanger, pump, No new hazards
etc.) fails to carry out it’s intended duty? What happens?
Over pressure? Vacuum conditions? No new hazards
High flow? Low flow? The 125% design case involves an
increase in feed flow rate. This
increased flow rate affect operator
reaction time for alarms as well as
flow rates through the process
piping.
High temperature? Low Temperature? Stream temperatures generally
decrease as a result of the
operating condition changes. The
highest simulated stream
temperature for the 125% case is
114.5C, and the lowest
L-7
temperature is 34.0C. No new

hazards.
Phase change? No new hazards
Reaction? Other reactions? No new hazards
Process upset condition? Since the 125% design case has
increased flow rates as well as the
addition of new equipment, it will
change the range of conditions that
the equipment may experience.
Therefore, it is necessary to test
and recalibrate the equipment to
ensure that the wide range of
conditions can be managed.
Heat transfer? Additional heat exchangers have
the potential to foul which results in
less efficient heat transfer.
Other energy transfer? (specify) The 125% design case involves a
drastic increase in energy input
due to the change in process
inputs as well as the addition of
new equipment. It is important to
make sure that the equipment can
handle the increased energy input.
Solid formation? Aggregation? How did it form? No new hazards
Liquid formation? Condensation? How did it form? N/A
Gas formation? Boiling? How did it form? No new hazards
Control problems? Temperature? The 125% design case often has
lower temperatures than the base
case so the likelihood of
overheating the equipment is
decreased.
Pressure? Due to the increased flowrate, the
risk of over pressure is increased.
It its important to monitor and
control the equipment to ensure
that it does not rupture or fail
during operation.
Flow? The increase in flowrate would
affect the reaction time for the
alarms and level controls within the
system. If the flowrate is at a high
enough rate that a vessel could fill
up before the level control alarms
could indicate, it could pose a
problem.
Level? The CO2 absorber, LP Flash
Stripper, and several other process
vessels have level controllers
attached. Due to the increased flow
rate, the reaction time to respond
to alarms would be reduced.
Composition? N/A
Interface? N/A
Loss of Containment? No new hazards
Flow problems? Backflow? No new hazards
L-8
Surge? No new hazards

Two phase? No new hazards
Erosion? Higher flow rates may increase the
velocity of fluid in the piping,
causing more erosion
Corrosion? Material of construction issues? Potentially increased erosion in
pipes due to increased velocity
Contaminants? No new hazards
Temperature limitations? Differential expansion? No new hazards
Fire? No new hazards
Explosion? No new hazards
Toxic Release? Asphyxiation? No new hazards
Radiation? N/A
Noise? Level expected? Equipment running at higher
throughput may generate
additional noise. Re-evaluate
hearing protection requirements if
necessary
Pollution Contaminants? Air? No new hazards
Water? No new hazards
Soil? No new hazards
3. PHA and HAZOP Methodology

To complete the PHA What-If? analysis and the HAZOP, the process was first divided into
manageable nodes. For the PHA, four nodes were defined using the CO2 Removal Unit PFDs and
were selected to be as extensive as possible to minimize the chances of hazardous consequences
being missed. For the HAZOP, the node was defined around the P&ID generated for the new lean
amine cooler (E-85). The hazards identified using the checklist PFD based analysis above were
used to guide the formulation of guide questions for the PHA and HAZOP. Sections 4.2 and 4.3
of this Appendix detail the process operating conditions for the base case, which were also used to
help guide the formulation of guide questions for the PHA and HAZOP analyses. These guide
questions were then used to determine potential hazardous scenarios and their causes that could
occur within the node.
L-9
The consequences of these identified hazardous scenarios were then quantitatively evaluated
using the risk matrix shown in Figure H1 below. The matrix was based on CNRL’s corporate risk
matrix. The risk ranking selected for a given scenario was assigned based on group consensus and
best judgement of the team members. The initial risk rating was assigned assuming that no
safeguards or controls were in place. After implementation of engineering safeguards and
administrative controls, the risk rating for each hazardous scenario was re-evaluated. If the residual
risk of the hazardous scenario was unacceptable or conditionally tolerable, additional
recommendations were considered to ensure that the process could be properly risk managed.
A team knowledgeable in the project equipment and hazard assessment methodology
conducted the What If? PHA and HAZOP. The team consisted of five engineering students from
Okane Engineering: Brendan Wong, Evans Kwak, Nympha Escobar, Kaitlin Wong, and Bryan
Lee. Brendan Wong was assigned the PHA Leader role, Evans Kwak was assigned the PHA
Facilitator role, and Bryan Lee was assigned the PHA Secretary role. PHA and HAZOP team
meeting results were recorded directly into an Excel spreadsheet. The complete Excel worksheets
created from the PHA and HAZOP analyses are provided in Sections 4.4 and 5.2 of this report.
L-10
L-11
3.1. Assumptions
Several assumptions were made when conducting the PHA and HAZOP analyses:
• Organizational and institutional factors such as substandard practices or conditions or
insufficient training were ruled out as plausible main causes of hazardous events. The
operators were assumed to have enough training and operate the equipment according to
written instructions and procedures
• As this design involves a capacity increase of a brownfield site, it was determined
existing startup and shutdown procedures were sufficient in the design cases where
equipment was not altered (Base Case and 112% Design Case)
• Relief valves and other equipment were assumed to have been designed, installed, and
inspected properly according to applicable codes and regulations. They were also
assumed to be in good working order
• Materials of construction for piping, gaskets, and other process equipment were assumed
to have been correctly selected according to applicable design codes and regulation and
with due consideration towards possible corrosion mechanisms
• The maximum consequence of an event that may have multiple outcomes was used to
determine the risk rating, ie. if an explosion occurred, the risk of personnel working
nearby was evaluated instead of a case where nobody is around
• Existing safeguards were assumed to already be in place to mitigate certain hazards. The
client should review these assumptions and re-evaluated whether additional controls are
necessary to manage risks to an ALARP level.
L-12
4. What If? Analysis

4.1. Overview
The PHA What If? Analysis was conducted to identify causes and consequences of major
safety hazards associated with the whole CO2 recovery unit at the CNRL Horizon Oil Sands
Upgrader Site during normal operating, maintenance, and upset conditions.
4.2. Node Definition

For the purposes of this PHA What if? analysis, the CO2 recovery unit was divided into
four separate nodes based on processing step in the CO2 recovery process. The nodes were made
to be as extensive as possible to minimize the chances of hazardous consequences being missed.
Marked up PFDs containing the node boundaries are shown in Figures L1 and L2 below.
#3
Figure L1. Marked up PFD (Drawing #CN49PFD) used in the What If? Analysis
L-13
#4
Figure L2. Marked up PFD (Drawing #CM49PFD) used in the What If? Analysis
The descriptions for each node are as follows:
Node 1. The CO2 Absorber is where syngas rises in countercurrent flow against a descending flow
of lean amine solution to remove CO2 from the syngas feed. Syngas leaving the top of the Absorber
is cooled with the condensed water removed in a knockout drum and is then sent to the PSA unit
outside battery limits.
Node 2. The rich amine solution from the bottom of the Absorber is flashed, with a portion of the
inert gases routed to SMR firing. The liquid Rich amine solution is regenerated into lean amine
solution in the LP Flash Stripper. The Stripper Reboiler provides the required heat to the bottom
L-14
of the Flash Stripper. Hot lean amine solution is withdrawn from the bottom of the LP Flash
Stripper, pumped to the lean/rich amine exchanger where it is cooled against semi-lean solution,
and then sent back to the LP Flash Stripper. H2O and CO2 vapours from the top of the LP Flash
Stripper are cooled in the Stripper Overhead Condenser and separated from the CO2 in a Reflux
Vessel. Water is pumped back to the top of the LP Flash Stripper.
Node 3. The lean amine solution is pumped to the air cooler. In the 125% case only, the lean amine
is further cooled by the lean amine cooler (E-85) before being sent back to the CO2 absorber.
Node 4. The CO2 gas stream is routed through a series of compressors, condensers, and knockout
drums prior to being sent the Product Dehydration Unit outside battery limits.
4.3. Node and Equipment Summary

To facilitate discussion, a high-level overview of the equipment contained within each node
was compiled and referenced throughout the PHA meeting process. This summary is provided in
Table L1 below for the base case design.
Table L1. Summary of equipment and operating conditions for each node
Node Equipment Tag & Base Case Commodity

Description Operating Conditions
1 C-80: CO2 Absorber Bottom/top: 40/57.5°C Amine Solution /
Bottom/top: 3325/3275 Syngas
kPag
1 E-80: CO2 Absorber Shell in/out: 45/40°C Shell Side: Syngas
Overhead Cooler Shell pressure: 3275 kPag Tube Side: Cooling
Tube in/out: 24/40°C Water
Tube pressure: 500 kPag
L-15
1 C-87: Absorber Overhead 40°C Synthesis Gas / Process

K.O Drum 3250 kPag Condensate
2 C-81: HP Amine Flash Drum 75°C Rich Amine / Flash Gas
600 kPag
2 E-81 A/B: Lean/Rich Amine Shell in/out: 114/83.4°C Lean Amine
Exchanger Shell pressure: 50 kPag Semilean Amine
Tube in/out: 73.4/103.4°C
2 G-81 A/B: Semilean Amine 73°C Lean Amine
Pump Suction: 329 kPag
Discharge: 662 kPag
2 C-82: LP Flash Stripper Bottom/top: 113.6/66.3°C Rich Amine / Wet CO2
Bottom/top: 50/40 kPag Gas
2 E-82: Stripper Reboiler 113.6°C Amine solution
50 kPag
2 E-83: Stripper Overhead Shell in/out: 65.6/45°C Shell: Carbon Dioxide
Condenser Shell pressure: 40 kPag Tube: Cooling Water
Tube in/out: 24/40°C
2 C-83: Reflux Vessel 45°C CO2 Gas / Process
20 kPag Condensate
2 G-83 A/B: Stripper Reflux 45°C Process Condensate
Pump Suction: 49kPag
Discharge: 776kPag
3 G-82A/B/C: HP Lean Amine 83°C Lean Amine
Pump Suction: 39 kPag
Discharge: 4199 kPag
3 E-84: Lean Amine Air In/out: 83.44/45°C Lean Amine
Cooler 4280 kPag
L-16
3 G-84: Amine Make Up Pump 10°C Lean Amine

(NNF) Suction: 15 kPag
Discharge: 668 kPag
3 C-84: Make Up Storage No information No information
Vessel (NNF)
4 E-101: Interstage Cooler Shell in/out: 150/42.5°C Shell: CO2 Product
Shell pressure: 257.3 kPag Tube: Cooling Water
Tube pressure: 257.3 kPag
4 E-102: Interstage Cooler Shell in/out: 150/42.5°C Shell: CO2 Product
Shell pressure: 992.9 kPag Tube: Cooling Water
Tube pressure: 257.3 kPag
4 E-103: Interstage Cooler Shell in/out: 150.2°C/34°C Shell: CO2 Product
Shell pressure: 3190 kPag Tube: Cooling Water
4 K-100: CO2 Product In/out: 44.4/150°C CO2 Product
Compressor In/out: 19/257.3kPag
4 K-101: CO2 Product In/out: 42.5/150°C CO2 Product
Compressor In/out: 257.3/992.9 kPag
4 K-102: CO2 Product In/out: 42.5/150.2°C CO2 Product
Compressor In/out: 992.9/3190kPag
4 D-100: Knockout Drum 42.5°C CO2 Product and Water
257.3 kPag
4 D-101: Knockout Drum 42.5°C CO2 Product and Water
992.85kPag
L-17
The Material Safety Data Sheets for all process components were also obtained to ensure all
PHA members were familiar with the common hazards associated with each process stream. The
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) symbols for each component are
summarized in Table L2 below.
Table L2: Summary of WHMIS hazard classifications for process components

Health Acute Pressurized
Compound Oxidizer Flammability Hazard Irritant Toxicity Gas Corrosive
CO Extremely Yes Yes Yes
CO2 Yes
H2 Extremely Yes
H2O
CH4 Extremely Yes
C2H6 Extremely Yes
C3H8 Extremely Yes
N-C4H10 Extremely Yes Yes
N-C5H12 Extremely Yes Yes
N2 Yes
O2 Yes Yes
MDEA Yes
Piperazine Yes Yes Yes
It should be noted that H2S is removed in hydro-desulphurization reactors prior to entering
the project boundaries and is therefore not included in the analysis. Additionally, chemicals such
as antifoam agent and potash/soda used for cleaning/degreasing were not considered due to their
limited use.
4.4. Base Case What If? Analysis Results

The completed What If? analysis worksheets for the base case are as follows:
L-18
L-19
L-20
L-21
L-22
L-23
L-24
L-25
L-26
L-27
L-28
L-29
L-30
L-31
L-32
L-33
L-34
L-35
4.5. 112% and 125% Redesign Cases What If? Analysis Results
After speaking with Mr. Wen regarding the scope of the PHA acceptable for the project, it was
decided that completing a separate analysis for all three cases would be very time consuming and
would have a significant amount of duplicate information. Most hazards were determined to have
little change to likelihood or consequence as a result of the capacity increase. Thus, after the What
If? analysis was completed for the base case, the What If? questions were re-considered for the
112% and 125% redesign cases and evaluated qualitatively instead.
4.5.1. 112% Redesign Case Recommendations

• Existing pressure relief devices should be reviewed and re-rated if necessary, to address
the increased flow rate through the different equipment. One key area of concern was the
CO2 absorber, which saw a 15 kPa increase to the bottoms operating pressure
• The increased flow rate may reduce the time available for operators to respond to level
alarms. Proper management of change procedures should be followed
• Verify equipment operating data and material balance specifications to ensure maximum
flow rates, pressure drops, and other process parameters are permissible under the
existing equipment design. There were several discrepancies identified when reviewing
the information provided by CNRL
• Confirm the process lines sizing completed for this project with existing pipe sizing and
material specifications to confirm the identification of high velocity lines so that
preventative measures can be taken to reduce erosion-corrosion
• The CO2 loading factor for the 112% case was 0.66 mol CO2/mol amine which was 0.01
higher than the maximum recommended value of 0.65 mol CO2/mol amine. This is
L-36
unlikely to cause corrosion issues due to the lower operating temperatures used, but
should be taken note of by the unit’s Corrosion Control Document
4.5.2. 125% Redesign Case Recommendations

• Existing pressure relief devices should be reviewed and re-rated if necessary, to address
the increased flow rate through the different equipment. Areas of concern included the
CO2 absorber, which saw a 30 kPa increase to the bottoms operating pressure, and the LP
Flash Stripper which saw a 5 kPa increase to the bottoms operating pressure
• The increased flow rate may reduce the time available for operators to respond to level
alarms. Proper management of change procedures should be followed
• Verify equipment operating data and material balance specifications to ensure maximum
flow rates, pressure drops, and other process parameters are permissible under the
existing equipment design. There were several discrepancies identified when reviewing
the information provided by CNRL
• Confirm the process lines sizing completed for this project with existing pipe sizing and
material specifications to confirm the identification of high velocity lines so that
preventative measures can be taken to reduce erosion-corrosion
• The new heat exchanger (E-85) is approximately 45 m away from the lean amine air
cooler (E-84), and approximately 30 m away from the CO2 absorber (C-80). The HP
Amine Pump (G-82A/B/C) supplies all the head for E-84 and E-85 prior to being sent
back into the CO2 absorber. Although the discharge head of the pump (4199 kPa) is
significantly higher than the operating pressure of C-80 (3325 kPa), the pressure losses
L-37
between G-82 and C-80 should be evaluated using existing plant information that is
unavailable to Okane Engineering at this time
• Ensure new or modified equipment is properly winterized (electrical tracing)
• Verify placement of new equipment with existing plot plan and operator input so that
there are no slips, trips, and fall issues, or issues to access for maintenance
• Ensure new random packing material is properly degreased and de-oiled to prevent
foaming in the CO2 Removal Unit
• Ensure start-up and shutdown sequences for the facility are reviewed and revised to
account for the new or modified process equipment
• The 125% redesign also uses a CO2 loading factor of 0.71 mol CO2/mol amine. This is
0.06 higher than the recommended limit but is still within the maximum equilibrium CO2
loading capacity of 1.0 mol CO2/mol amine (2). This may pose issues for corrosion if the
125% capacity redesign is explored further
5. HAZOP Analysis
5.1. Overview
A HAZOP was completed on the P&ID created for the new lean amine cooler (E-85). Guide
words were formulated to consider process deviations for parameters during commissioning,
steady state operation, startup-up, and shutdown. Engineering safeguards were implemented
early into the heat exchanger design process to ensure risks could be properly managed.
5.2. HAZOP Results

The P&ID used for the HAZOP is shown in Appendix E. The completed HAZOP worksheet
and list of engineering safeguards considered for E-85 is shown on the subsequent page
L-38
L-39
L-40
L-41
5.3. List of Recommendations and Implications

The safeguards for E-85 are shown under the “safeguards” column in the worksheets above for
each deviation considered. The full list of recommendations made as a result of the HAZOP
analysis and their implications are detailed below:
• Ensure that E-85 is properly winterized so that there is minimal risk of equipment and/or
lines freezing during exceptionally cold winters
• Confirm the process line sizes selected for the heat exchanger. The line sizing methods
employed for this project may not correspond to corporate standards and guidelines.
Differences in line sizes would affect PSV and PRV sizing
• The placement of E-85 should be confirmed with the existing plot plan and piping
isometrics. Operations and maintenance should also be consulted. The reference plot plan
provided by CNRL for this project was a very rough sketch, and the HAZOP members are
unfamiliar with the piping layout and high traffic areas of the CO2 Removal Unit.
Equipment placement for E-85 was selected based on optimizing maintenance access and
piping length, and may not actually be suitable if the location is obstructed by obstacles
not shown on the provided plot plan
• The startup/shutdown procedures for the CO2 Removal Unit must be updated to account
for this new piece of equipment
• The scope of the study was limited to the course requirements and available information.
It is recommended that a complete HAZOP analysis be undertaken that utilizes existing
P&IDs and which considers parameters for the CO2 removal unit as a whole. The study
L-42
should include representatives from engineering, operations, maintenance, business
management, and other functions that have adequate experience and process knowledge
6. Dow Fire and Explosion Index

The proposed project deals with syngas as one of the main properties utilized in the main
process streams. Syngas is a highly flammable material and poses a major threat to employees in
the event of a leak in the system or equipment and pipeline failures. This threat can be calculated
using the Dow Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI). To obtain an accurate understanding of the risk
posed by the process, the F&EI was calculated for the major vessels that contained syngas, for the
base case, the 112% design case, and the 125% design case.
Below are the plot plans with the exposure radius for each case as well as the F&EI
calculations. The electrical area classification is for every case is, division 1 class 1 explosion
proof.
L-43
SCALE (m) :
2.5 5 10 20
BATTERY LIMIT
OTHER
OTHER EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
PIPE RACK
Pipe Rack Elevation:
Approximately 7 m
ROAD
E-84 C-85 C-84

PUMP G-86A
PUMP G-86A
G-84 PUMP G-82A PUMP
PUMP G-86B
G-82B PUMP
PUMP G-87A
G-82C PUMP
PUMP G-87B E-81A/B
OTHER G-81A PUMP
EQUIPMENT
E-82 G-81B PUMP
ROAD
C-83
PUMP G-83A/B
E-80
C-86 E-83
FTR-80
C-87
C-81
C-80
C-82
ROAD
PIPE RACK
Approximately 7 m
OTHER OTHER
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
OTHER
EQUIPMENT

CN49PLT 1
DATE: 2019/03/14
L-44
SCALE (m) :
BATTERY LIMIT
2.5 5 10 20
OTHER
OTHER EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
PIPE RACK
Approximately 7 m
ROAD
E-84 C-85 C-84

PUMP G-86A
PUMP G-86A
G-84 PUMP G-82A PUMP
PUMP G-86B
G-82B PUMP
PUMP G-87A
G-82C PUMP
PUMP G-87B E-81A/B
OTHER G-81A PUMP
EQUIPMENT
E-82 G-81B PUMP
ROAD
C-83
PUMP G-83A/B
E-80
C-86 E-83
FTR-80
C-87
C-81
C-80
C-82
ROAD
PIPE RACK
Approximately 7 m
OTHER OTHER
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
OTHER
EQUIPMENT

CN49PLT 1
DATE: 2019/03/14
L-45
SCALE (m)
SCALE (m) ::
2.5 55
2.5 10
10 20
20
BATTERY LIMIT
BATTERY LIMIT
OTHER
OTHER
OTHER
OTHER EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
PIPE
PIPE RACK
RACK
Pipe
Pipe Rack
Rack Elevation:
Elevation:
Approximately
Approximately 77 m
m
ROAD
ROAD
E-84
E-84 C-85
C-85 C-84
C-84
PUMP
PUMP G-86A
G-86A
PUMP
PUMP G-86A
G-86A
G-84
G-84 PUMP
PUMP G-82A
G-82A PUMP
PUMP
PUMP
PUMP G-86B
G-86B
G-82B
G-82B PUMP
PUMP
PUMP
PUMP G-87A
G-87A
G-82C
G-82C PUMP
PUMP
PUMP
PUMP G-87B
G-87B E-81A/B
E-81A/B
OTHER
OTHER G-81A
G-81A PUMP
PUMP
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
E-82 G-81B
G-81B PUMP
PUMP
E-82
ROAD
ROAD
C-83
C-83 PUMP
PUMP G-83A/B
G-83A/B
E-85
E-80
E-80
C-86
C-86 E-83
E-83
FTR-80
FTR-80
E-85 C-87
C-87
C-81
C-81
C-80
C-80
C-82
C-82
ROAD
ROAD
PIPE
PIPE RACK
RACK
Pipe
Pipe Rack
Rack Elevation:
Elevation:
Approximately
Approximately 77 m
m
OTHER
OTHER OTHER
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT

BY:
BY: E.
E. KWAK
KWAK DRAWING
DRAWING NUMBER
NUMBER REV
REV
CN49PLT
CN49PLT 11
DATE:
DATE: 2019/03/14
2019/03/14
L-46
Unit 1. Carbon Dioxide Absorber (C-80) - Base Case State:

Prepared By: Evans Kwak Normal
Material Used in Process: Synthesis Gas Operation
Material Factor 21
Penalty Factor Penalty Factor
1. General Process Hazards
Range Used
Base Factor 1.00 1.00
A. Exothermic Reactions 0 - 1.25 0
B. Endothermic Reactions 0 - 0.40 0
C. Material Handling and Transfer 0 - 0.80 0
D. Enclosed or Indoor Process Units 0 - 0.90 0
E. Ease of Access 0 - 0.35 0.20
F. Drainage and Spill Control 0 - 0.5 0
General Process Hazards Factor (F1) 1.20
2. Special Process Hazards
Range Used
A. Toxic Materials 0
B. Vacuum Operation 0.50 0
C. Operation Near Flammable Range 0 - 0.80 0
D. Dust Explosion 0 - 0.20 0
E. Pressure Penalty 0.84
F. Low Temperature Operation 0 - 0.30 0
G. Flammable Materials 0.82
H. Corrosion and Erosion 0 - 0.75 0.10
I. Leakage - Joints and Packing 0 -1.50 0.10
J. Fired Equipment 0
K. Hot Oil Heat Exchnage 0 - 1.15 0
L. Rotating Equipment 0.50 0
Special Process Hazards Factor (F2) 2.86
Process Unit Hazards Factor (F1 x F2 = F3) 3.43
Fire and Explosion Index (F3 x MF = F&EI) 72.03
L-47
Loss of Control Credit Factors – Unit 1
Credit Credit Credit Credit

Feature Factor Factor Feature Factor Factor
Range Used Range Used
1. Process Control Credit Factor (C1)

a. Emergency Power 0.98 0.98 f. Inert Gas 0.94 to 0.99 1
b. Cooling 0.97 to 0.99 0.97 g. Operating Procedures 0.91 to 0.99 0.91
c. Explosion Control 0.84 to 0.98 1 h. Chemical Review 0.91 to 0.98 1
d. Emergency Shutdown 0.96 to 0.99 0.96 i. Other Analysis 0.91 to 0.98 0.94
e. Computer Control 0.93 to 0.99 0.97
C1 Value 0.76
2. Material Isolation Credit Factor (C2)

a. Remote Control 0.96 to 0.98 0.98 c. Drainage 0.91 to 0.97 0.97
b. Dump/Blowdown 0.96 to 0.98 0.98 d. Interlock 0.98 0.98
C2 Value 0.91
3. Fire Protection Credit (C3)

a. Leak Detection 0.94 to 0.98 0.98 f. Water Curtains 0.97 to 0.98 1
b. Structural Steel 0.95 to 0.98 0.98 g. Foam 0.92 to 0.97 1
c. Firewater Supply 0.94 to 0.97 1 h. Hand Extinguishers 0.93 to 0.98 0.98
d. Special Systems 0.91 1 i. Cable Protection 0.94 to 0.98 1
e. Sprinkler Systems 0.74 to 0.97 1
C3 Value 0.94
Loss Control Credit Factor (C1*C2*C3) 0.65
1. Fire & Explosion Index (F&EI) 72.03

2. Radius of Exposure 18.49 m
3. Area of Exposure 1074 m2
4. Value of Area of Exposure $ 2506132
5. Damage Factor 0.61
6. Base Maximum Probable Property Damage $ 1528741
7. Loss Control Credit Factor 0.65
8. Actual Maximum Probable Property Damage $ 994654
9. Maximum Probable Days Outage 20
10. Buisness Interruption $ 415738
L-48
Unit 2. HP Amine Flash Drum (C-81) - Base Case State:

Material Used in Process: Rich Amine Operation
Material Factor 16
Range Used
Range Used
A. Toxic Materials 0.60
L-49


b. Cooling 0.97 to 0.99 0.97 g. Operating Procedures 0.91 to 0.99 1
d. Emergency Shutdown 0.96 to 0.99 1 i. Other Analysis 0.91 to 0.98 0.94
e. Computer Control 0.93 to 0.99 1
C1 Value 0.89

a. Remote Control 0.96 to 0.98 1 c. Drainage 0.91 to 0.97 0.97
C2 Value 0.93

a. Leak Detection 0.94 to 0.98 1 f. Water Curtains 0.97 to 0.98 1
b. Structural Steel 0.95 to 0.98 1 g. Foam 0.92 to 0.97 1
C3 Value 0.98

L-50
Unit 3. Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum (C-87) - Base Case State:

Material Used in Process: Synthesis Gas Operation
Material Factor 21
Range Used
Range Used
L-51


C1 Value 0.89

C2 Value 0.93

C3 Value 0.98

L-52
Unit 4. Carbon Dioxide Absorber (C-80) – 112% Design Case State:

Prepared By: Evans Kwak
Design
Material Used in Process: Synthesis Gas
Material Factor 21
Range Used
Range Used
L-53


C1 Value 0.76

C2 Value 0.91

C3 Value 0.94

L-54
Unit 5. HP Amine Flash Drum (C-81) – 112% Design Case State:

Design
Material Used in Process: Rich Amine
Material Factor 16
Range Used
Range Used
L-55


C1 Value 0.89

C2 Value 0.93

C3 Value 0.98

L-56
Unit 6. Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum (C-87) – 112% Design Case State:
Design
Material Factor 21
Range Used
Range Used
L-57


C1 Value 0.89

C2 Value 0.93

C3 Value 0.98

L-58
Unit 7. Carbon Dioxide Absorber (C-80) – 125% Design Case State:

Design
Material Factor 21
Range Used
Range Used
L-59


C1 Value 0.76

C2 Value 0.91

C3 Value 0.94

L-60
Unit 8. HP Amine Flash Drum (C-81) – 125% Design Case State:

Design
Material Used in Process: Rich Amine
Material Factor 16
Range Used
Range Used
L-61


C1 Value 0.89

C2 Value 0.93

C3 Value 0.98

L-62
Unit 9. Absorber Overhead Knockout Drum (C-87) – 125% Design Case State:
Design
Material Factor 21
Range Used
Range Used
L-63


C1 Value 0.89

C2 Value 0.93

C3 Value 0.98

L-64
7. Dow Chemical Exposure Index

The Dow Chemical Exposure Index was found for carbon monoxide which was deemed the
most dangerous substance in our process. It was done for stream 26 for the base case, the 112%
design case, and the 125% design case since it contained the highest pressure, temperature, and
concentration of carbon monoxide out of all the streams and equipment in our process.
7.1. Sample calculations for the Chemical Exposure Index

Table L3 shows the properties for carbon monoxide taken from DOW Chemical Exposure
Index.
Table L3. Properties of carbon monoxide

Property Value
Chemical Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Molecular Weight (g/mol) 28.01
Boiling Point (°C) -191.5
ERPG-2 (mg/m3) 402
ERPG-3 (mg/m3) 573
To calculate the rupture area, the pipe diameter of interest is required. The pipe diameter of
stream 26 was determined to be 10 inches (254 mm). Since the pipe diameter is greater than 4
inches, the rupture area can be approximated to be 20% of the pipe cross sectional area.
𝐷 2
𝐴𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (0.20) ∗ (𝜋) ∗ ( )
2
254 𝑚𝑚 2
𝐴𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (0.20) ∗ (𝜋) ∗ ( ) = 10134 𝑚𝑚2
2
L-65
𝐷𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = √4 ∗ 𝐴𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 ∗ 𝜋
4 ∗ (10134 𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐷𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = √ = 113.6 𝑚𝑚
𝜋
After the radius has been found it is necessary to find the key process conditions that would
affect the exposure radius. Table H4 shows the process conditions for the 125% design case since
it resulted in the largest exposure radius.
Table L4. Process conditions for stream 26 for the 125% design case
Property Value
Temperature (°C) 51.5
Pressure (kPa) 3375
Quantity of gas (kg) 9558
Latent Heat of Vaporization (J/kg) 216000
Ratio of Cp/Hv 0.0048
One major assumption that Okane Engineering has made regarding the calculation of the CEI,
is that if a breach in equipment were to occur, the process would be shut down within 1 hour of
the breach. Therefore, the quantity of gas that is shown in the Table L4 is an estimated value that
is used purely for the calculation of the Chemical Exposure Index for course requirement purposes.
In the process, the synthesis gas stream does not have a set quantity since it is a by-product from
the SMR unit downstream of the CO2 Recovery Plant. Okane Engineering also does not have the
required information, regarding the SMR operation, to calculate the total quantity of synthesis gas
that would be produced. The synthesis gas stream can also be bypassed by the SMR unit if an
L-66
equipment breach were to occur. Therefore, the quantity of gas available for release would be the
quantity of carbon monoxide that would have been sent to the recovery unit within one hour.
Calculating the airborne quantity resulting from a process breach follows as:
𝑀𝑊
𝐴𝑄 = 4.751 ∗ 10−6 ∗ 𝐷𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 2 ∗ 𝑃 ∗ √
𝑇 + 273
28.01 𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝐴𝑄 = 4.751 ∗ 10−6 ∗ (113.6 𝑚𝑚)2 ∗ (3375 𝑘𝑃𝑎) ∗ √
(41.2 ℃) + 273
𝐴𝑄 = 61.77 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
This value of the airborne quantity is saying that with the stream properties stated in Table L4,
a process breach would result in a release of 60.79 kg/s of carbon monoxide. This would mean that
the full quantity of gas would be released within approximately 2 and a half minutes. However,
the DOW Chemical Exposure Index assumes that all release scenarios are continuous for at least
5 minutes. Therefore, the release rate is calculated by dividing the quantity of gas by five minutes,
which follows as:
9558 𝑘𝑔
𝐴𝑄 = = 31.86 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
300 𝑠
Using the airborne quantity, the Chemical Exposure Index and the ERPG specified hazard radius
can be calculated.
𝐴𝑄
𝐶𝐸𝐼 = 655.1 ∗ √
𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺2
L-67
31.86
𝐶𝐸𝐼 = 655.1 ∗ √ = 184.4
402
𝐴𝑄
𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = 6551 ∗ √
𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺2
31.86
𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺2𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = 6551 ∗ √ = 1844
402
Table L5. Summary of CEI and ERPG radii for base, 122% and 125% design cases
Calculated Parameter Base Case 112% Design Case 125% Design Case
CEI 164.9 174.1 184.4
ERPG-2 (m) 1649 1741 1844
ERPG-3 (m) 1382 1458 1545
8. Applicable Safety Regulations and Code Requirements

The full list of applicable regulations and standards for this project are detailed in this section.
8.1. Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation

Applicable Standards, Codes, and Recommended Practices under the Pressure Equipment
Safety Regulation include:
• Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard B51 -14, Boiler, pressure vessel and
pressure piping code
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code –
2015, Section VIII
L-68
• ASME B31.3 Process Piping, including Appendices A to E, K, L, and X
• Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) Standard Practice SP-25-2013, Standard
Marking System for Valves, Fittings, Flanges and Unions
• Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) Standards of Tubular Exchanger
Manufacturers Association (9th Edition)
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO-16528 Boilers and Pressure
Vessels for construction not addressed in the above codes and standards
8.2. Electrical Code

Applicable electrical standards and Codes currently in force include:
• CSA C22.1-18 Canadian Electrical Code (24th Edition)
• Alberta Electrical Utility Code
8.3. Plumbing Code

Applicable plumbing codes and standards currently in force include:
• National plumbing Code of Canada 2015
• Plumbing Code Regulation
8.4. Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act

The applicable codes and regulations under the Alberta OHS Act includes:
• Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
• Occupational Health and Safety Code 2009 Order
• Occupational Health and Safety Code
L-69
8.5. Fire Code

The codes in the Fire discipline currently in force includes:
• Alberta Fire Code 2014
8.6. Canada Labour Code

Applicable regulations under the Canada Labour Code includes:
• Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
L-70
List of References
1. Continuous absorption of CO2 in a packed column using MDEA solution for biomethane
production. A. Mindaryani, W. Budhijanto, S. S. Ningrum. s.l. : Materials Science and
Engineering, 2017, Vol. 162.
Loading Capacity. Santos, Samuel P, Gomes, João F and Bordado, João C. 19, s.l. : MDPI,
2016, Vol. 4.
L-71
Appendix M: Pressure-Relieving Device Sizing

Description
This appendix outlines the selection process of a suitable pressure-relieving device and the
calculations completed to obtain sizing parameters for the device. Pressure relief was integrated
into the selected lean amine heat exchanger, E-85. The pressure-relieving device was selected and
sized with reference to API Standard 520 Part I, API Standard 521, and Gas Processors Suppliers
Association Engineering Data Book.
Table of Contents
1. Shell-side Pressure Relief .................................................................................................... M-1
1.1. Scenarios for Overpressure .......................................................................................... M-1
1.1.1. Closed Outlet .......................................................................................................... M-1
1.1.2. Cooling Water Failure ............................................................................................ M-1
1.1.3. Failure of Automatic Controls ................................................................................ M-1
1.1.4. Split Exchanger Tube ............................................................................................. M-1
1.1.5. Hydraulic Expansion .............................................................................................. M-1
1.2. Selection and Size ........................................................................................................ M-2
2. Tube-side Pressure Relief .................................................................................................... M-3
2.1. Scenarios for Overpressure .......................................................................................... M-3
2.1.1. Closed Outlet .......................................................................................................... M-3
2.1.2. Failure of Automatic Controls ................................................................................ M-3
2.1.3. Split Exchanger Tube ............................................................................................. M-3
2.2. Selection and Size ........................................................................................................ M-3
List of References ...................................................................................................................... M-5
i
1. Shell-side Pressure Relief

1.1. Scenarios for Overpressure
Lean amine flows on the shell side of the heat exchanger. The lean amine entering the heat
exchanger comes from an upstream air cooler. After passing through E-85, the lean amine enters
the CO2 Absorber. A pressure relief device is proposed on the inlet lean amine stream into the heat
exchanger.
1.1.1. Closed Outlet

If the valve on the lean amine outlet is inadvertently closed, the pressure and temperature of
the line would increase.
1.1.2. Cooling Water Failure

If cooling water supply is eliminated, the lean amine could increase in temperature and
pressure as it passes through the heat exchanger.
1.1.3. Failure of Automatic Controls

There is a temperature controller attached to the lean amine outlet that adjusts cooling water
flow to address temperature fluctuation. A flow controller is also present on the inlet stream to the
exchanger.
1.1.4. Split Exchanger Tube

In the event that the heat exchanger tubes split open due to unforeseen reasons, the pressure
inside the heat exchanger could increase.
1.1.5. Hydraulic Expansion

The volume of the liquid lean amine could increase if temperature increases due to blocked
in cooling water or heated by outside factors such as solar radiation or fire.
M-1
1.2. Selection and Size

According to GPSA Section 5 Relief Systems, conventional and balanced bellows relief
valves are recommended for liquid service. Pilot operated relied valves should be used in liquid
service only when the manufacturer has approved the specific application. Since the shell-side
fluid is in liquid phase, a conventional spring-loaded relief valve was chosen.
Shell Side PRV

GPSA Engineering
Standard: Data Book MAWP (kPa): 6145
Conventional Allowable stress, TS
PSV Type: Spring-Loaded (psi): 20030
Relieving Fluid Type: Liquid Thickness, t (in): 0.438
Set Pressure (kPag): 6044 Thickness, t (mm): 11.125
Fractional Overpressure: 10% Seam efficiency, E: 1
Over Pressure (kPa): 200 Radius, R (in): 6.562
Back Pressure (kPa): 0 Safety Factor, SF: 1.5
Diameter, D (in): 13.124
Standard Orifice Designation: N
Valve Body Size (Inlet D x Outlet D) (mm) 100x150
Area, A (cm2): 24.7
Flow Rate, Vl (L/s) 165.4
Coefficient of Discharge, Kd 0.65
Combination correction for rupture disc, Kc 0.9
Back pressure capacity correction factor, Kw 1
Capacity correction factor due to viscosity, Kv 1
Upstream relieving pressure, P1 (kPa (a)) 6345
Back pressure, Pb (kPa (g)) 0
Specific Gravity, G 1.034
Reynolds number, Re 5339
Where
𝑡 × 𝑇𝑆 × 𝐸
𝑀𝐴𝑊𝑃 =
𝑅 × 𝑆𝐹
M-2
7.07𝑉𝑙 √𝐺
𝐴=
𝐾𝑑 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑤 𝐾𝑣 √𝑃1 − 𝑃𝑏
2. Tube-side Pressure Relief

Cooling water flows on the tube side of the heat exchanger. Cooling water is supplied from
and returned to the cooling water header. A pressure-relief device on the cooling water return line
is proposed.
2.1. Scenarios for Overpressure

2.1.1. Closed Outlet
If the valve on the cooling water return line is inadvertently closed, the pressure and
temperature of the line would increase.
2.1.2. Failure of Automatic Controls

Cooling water flow is controlled by the temperature of the lean amine outlet stream. If this
fails and the outlet valve is not fully open, the line could be pressurized.
2.1.3. Split Exchanger Tube

If the heat exchanger tubes rupture, the high pressure of the surrounding lean amine would
increase the pressure of the cooling water line.
2.2. Selection and Size

The cooling water line is in liquid service and a conventional spring-loaded relief valve
was chosen.
M-3
Tube Side PSV

GPSA Engineering
Standard: Data Book MAWP (kPa): 1455
Conventional Allowable stress,
PSV Type: Spring-Loaded TS (psi): 16700
Relieving Fluid Type: Liquid Thickness, t (in): 0.109
Set Pressure (kPag): 1354 Thickness, t (mm): 2.7686
Seam efficiency,
Fractional Overpressure: 10% E: 1
Over Pressure (kPa): 135 Radius, R (in): 4.3125
Back Pressure (kPa): 0 Safety Factor, SF: 2
Diameter, D (in): 8.625
Standard Orifice Designation: M
Valve Body Size (Inlet D x Outlet D) (mm) 100x150
Area, A (cm2): 22.6
Flow Rate, Vl (L/s) 75.9
Coefficient of Discharge, Kd 0.65
Combination correction for rupture disc, Kc 0.9
Back pressure capacity correction factor, Kw 1
Capacity correction factor due to viscosity, Kv 1
Upstream relieving pressure, P1 (kPa (a)) 1591
Back pressure, Pb (kPa (g)) 0
Specific Gravity, G 0.994
Reynolds number, Re 15033
M-4
List of References
2.
2. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME Code for Pressure Piping.
[Standard] New York : s.n., 2016. B31.3.
3. Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-relieving Devices in Refineries. American
Petroleum Institute. s.l. : American Petroleum Institute, 2008. API Standard 520.
4. Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems. American Petroleum Institute. s.l. : American
Petroleum Institute, 2008. API Standard 521.
5. Flanged Steel Pressure Relief Valves. American Petroleum Institute. s.l. : American
Petroleum Institute, 2002. API Standard 526.
M-5
Appendix N: Environmental and Net Social Benefit Assessments

Description
This Appendix contains a brief review and identification of applicable environmental
regulations and net social benefit considerations for the Revamp of CO2 Recovery Plant project.
Identification of process waste streams, environmental issues and mitigation strategies, and a
detailed net social benefit assessment are provided in detail within this Appendix to support
conclusions presented in the main report.
Table of Contents
1. Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................... N-1
1.1. Identification of Waste Streams .................................................................................... N-1
1.2. Applicable Regulations, Legislations, and Guidelines .................................................. N-1
1.2.1. Climate Leadership Act ........................................................................................... N-1
1.2.2. Calculation of Environmental Metric ...................................................................... N-2
1.2.3. Other Factors ........................................................................................................... N-3
1.3. Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change ......................... N-3
1.4. Oil Sands Emissions Limit Act ............................................................................... N-4
1.5. Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (CCEMA) ................................ N-4
1.6. Water Act ................................................................................................................ N-5
1.7. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guidelines ................................................................ N-5
2. Net Social Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................. N-6
2.1. Affected Individuals and Areas ..................................................................................... N-6
2.2. Resource Use ................................................................................................................. N-6
2.3. Socio-Economic Impacts ............................................................................................... N-7
2.4. Traffic ............................................................................................................................ N-7
2.5. Noise .............................................................................................................................. N-8
2.6. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... N-8
References ................................................................................................................................... N-9
i
1. Environmental Assessment
1.1. Identification of Waste Streams
There were no waste streams identified for the CO2 Removal Unit other than fugitive
emissions of vapours from equipment. Fugitive emissions are accidental emissions of vapours or
gases from pressurized equipment, and can occur due to irregular venting, faulty equipment, or
other unintended causes such as leaking. Unfortunately, these emissions are difficult to quantify
with a high degree of accuracy due to the “accidental” nature of their release (1). However, the
fugitive emissions from the CO2 Removal Unit are infinitesimally smaller than leakage emissions
from other areas of the CNRL Horizon Facility, such as mine faces and tailings ponds.
Additionally, CNRL has a Fugitive Emission Management and Control (FEMC) program in place
to identify larger gas leaks and prioritize them for repair (2).
The process streams crossing the boundary of the project scope is further treated or
processed in other areas of the Horizon Oil Sands site. Process water and condensate is recycled
in other portions of the plant, flash gas is used as fuel for various on-site heaters, burners, and
generators, plant heaters, duct burners for heat recovery steam generator units and gas-fired steam
boilers. The syngas is also further treated in the Pressure Swing Absorption (PSA) unit, and
recovered CO2 is sent to the Dehydration unit.
1.2. Applicable Regulations, Legislations, and Guidelines

1.2.1. Climate Leadership Act
The Climate Leadership Regulation and Climate Leadership Act came into force on
January 1st, 2017. Under this regulation, a price on carbon is imposed which applies to heating and
transportation fuels based on tonnes of CO2e, a standard unit for measuring carbon footprint in
terms of the 100-year time horizon global warming potential of a specified gas expressed in terms
N-1
of equivalency to CO2. The current price on carbon is $30/tCO2e in Alberta and may rise to
$50/tCO2e as early as 2022 under the federally-imposed carbon price (Discussed further in Section
1.3). Alberta has since opted out of the federal climate The GHG emissions reduction in tCO2e is
thus the most important environmental metric for this project.
1.2.2. Calculation of Environmental Metric

For the 112% and 125% redesign cases, the GHG emissions reduction amount was
calculated by taking by taking the difference between the CO2 product stream molar flow rates
between the redesign case and the base case. For example, in the 112% redesign case:
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙

𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2_𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2_𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚38_112% − 𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚38 = 1277.74 − 1187.15 = 90.59
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 ℎ ℎ ℎ
𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇𝐶𝑂2_𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2_𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑂2 = 90.59 ∗ 44.01 = 3986.87 𝑘𝑔/ℎ𝑟
ℎ 𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑘𝑔 1𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 24ℎ𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒

𝑚̇𝐶𝑂2𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑_𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 3986.87 ∗ ∗ ∗ 365 = 34,925
ℎ𝑟 1000𝑘𝑔 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟
Similarly, the additional CO2 recovered for the 125% case was calculated to be 95,453 tCO2e/yr.
The CO2 emissions from increased electricity usage as a result of the capacity increase
would also have an effect on the overall GHG emissions of the facility. However, this cost was
ignored as the values were very small in comparison to the actual CO2 additional recovery. A
sample calculation for the 112% case for electricity grid usage is as follows, using the methodology
and factors given in the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook. Let EC stand for Electricity
Consumption:
𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒 1 𝑀𝑊ℎ
𝐸𝐶𝐶𝑂2𝑒 = 𝐸𝐶 ∗ 𝐸𝐶𝑡𝐶𝑂2𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑊ℎ = 622.74𝑘𝑊ℎ ∗ 0.64 ∗ = 0.398 𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒
𝑀𝑊ℎ 1000 𝑘𝑊ℎ
N-2
Further study would be required to determine the overall net GHG emissions reduction that
may be achieved when considering other portions of the upgrader site affected by the feed flow
rate increase, such as the PSA unit and downstream dehydration unit.
From the Environmental protection agency website, a typical passenger vehicle emits about
4.6 tonnes of CO2 per year (3). Thus, the increased CO2 recovery from the 125% and 112%
redesign cases would be equivalent to removing 7,592 to 20,751 passenger vehicles from the roads:
𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 / 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑟
34925 𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒
𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 (112%) = = 7,592 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒
4.6
𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒
95,453 𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒
𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 (125%) = = 20,751 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑡𝐶𝑂2 𝑒
4.6
𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒
1.2.3. Other Factors

Additionally, the Alberta Provincial elections will occur on April 16th, which may have
large implications for the carbon levy. The United Conservative Party (UCP) is a loud and vocal
opponent of both the 100 MT emissions cap for the oil sands industry and the carbon levy (4). If
the UCP wins the election, UCP leader Jason Kenney has vowed to scrap the Alberta carbon levy
and fight the federal government’s Pan-Canadian Climate Framework including the federally
imposed carbon tax.
1.3. Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change

Canada released a federal climate change plan in December 2016 as a collective plan to
grow the Country’s economy while reducing emissions and building resilience to adapt to a
changing climate (5). This plan requires jurisdictions to enforce a price-based system on GHG
N-3
emissions. Under this plan, the federally imposed carbon price of $10/tCO2e in 2018 is expected
to increase to $50/tCO2e by 2022.
1.4. Oil Sands Emissions Limit Act

Under the Oil Sands Emissions Limit Act, an annual 100 MT limit on GHG emissions is
specified for all oil sands sites combined. Prudent consideration towards GHG emissions and
environmental management is required to ensure the sustainability of the oil sands industry.
Additional recovered CO2 as a result of this project could be used to support environmental
initiatives in nearby oil sands facilities who currently transport CO2 from Edmonton by truck.
Some examples of initiatives include the Non-Segregating Tailings process and Carbon Capture
and Storage (CCS) initiatives.
1.5. Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (CCEMA)

The CNRL Horizon Oil Sands Site is a regulated facility under the Carbon Competitiveness
Incentive Regulation (CCIR) under the CCEMA and is subject to the carbon tax. Regulated
facilities are not penalized under the CCIR if their GHG emissions are below the designated limit,
which depends on the industry specific emissions benchmarks. If regulated facilities emit GHGs
above the designated limits, they are subject to compliancy costs calculated based on excess GHG
emissions. To maintain compliancy with the CCIR, these facilities must reduce their emissions
intensity, purchase Alberta-based carbon offset credits, or make a monetary contribution to
Alberta’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF) (9). The cost to purchase
carbon offset credits or contribute to the CCEMF is currently $30/tCO2e excess, which could rise
to $50/tCO2e in 2022. Increasing the capacity of the CO2 Removal Unit would have the overall
benefit of reducing GHG emissions in the upgrader and reduce carbon tax costs for CNRL under
this regulation
N-4
Carbon Dioxide is also a Specified Gas under the CCEMA and CCIR. The reporting
threshold identified in the Specified Gas Reporting Regulation is 10,000 tonnes of emissions from
a facility. The decrease in CO2 emissions from the CNRL Horizon Facility would not be enough
to waive this reporting requirement.
1.6. Water Act

CNRL currently has a licence under the Water Act (Licence No. 00186921-01-00) which
enforces a 66.1 MM m3/yr of water draw from surface water sources. This includes a maximum
diversion rate of 3.1 m3/s from the Athabasca River with a total maximum diversion of 55.82
MMm3/yr, and a 34.7 MMm3/yr maximum diversion from the Tar River and surface runoff
sources tributary to the Tar and Calumet Rivers. The 112% and 125% cases would increase the
cooling water requirements of the CO2 Removal Unit by 0.013 and 0.101 m3/s, respectively. This
small change is not likely to pose an issue for the client, however limited information is available
regarding current facility water use and draw from the river. Additional study would be required
to fully understand the implications of this increased water usage for the project cases. Periods of
low flow for the surface water sources such as during dry summers or frigid winters, as well as
periods of process upsets should also be considered for further investigation. There is also no
suspected increase in sediment loading or water quality as a result of this project.
1.7. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guidelines

There are no suspected increases to air quality parameters such as NOX, SOX, volatile
organic compounds, and particulate matter as a direct result from the increased CO2 Removal Unit.
Implications of the increased feed flow rate for the hydro-desulphurization reactors, PSA unit, and
other sources of emissions from the Horizon Oil Sands Facility were not considered for this
analysis.
N-5
CNRL is committed to ensuring a high standard of air quality for its stakeholders. CNRL
is a founding member of the Wood buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA), Terrestrial
Environmental Effects Monitoring (TEEM) program, Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program
(RAMP) and Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). If the company
continues to maintain this high standard for air quality and participation with these various
associations and monitoring programs, ambient air quality around the Horizon Oil Sands Facility
will not be an issue.
2. Net Social Benefit Analysis

2.1. Affected Individuals and Areas
To begin the net social benefit analysis, a brief study of the area surrounding the CNRL
Horizon Oil Sands facility was first conducted. The facility is part of the Regional Municipality of
Wood Buffalo (RMWB) which comprises the City of Fort McMurray and the surrounding rural
areas (6). There are five First Nation members controlling approximately 26 reserves in the
surrounding rural area, which includes the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Fort Chipewyan, the
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in Fort Chipewyan, the Fort McKay First Nation in Fort
McKay, The Fort McMurray First Nation near Anzac, and the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation in
Janvier (6).
2.2. Resource Use

Because the 112% and 125% redesign cases are contained within the CNRL Horizon Oil
Sands facility and do not involve work outside of the facility’s boundaries, the traditional lands in
the RMWB will not disturbed. Non-aboriginal environmentally important areas will also not be
N-6
affected, including aggregate resources; agriculture; forestry; berry harvesting; hunting; trapping;
fishing; cultural or spiritual locations; and recreation.
2.3. Socio-Economic Impacts

There are several socio-economic benefits to proceeding with the 112% or 125% redesigns.
Over the project’s 20-year lifetime, the 125% and 112% redesigns would generate $1.95 million
CAD and $8.95 million CAD in corporate income tax revenue for the provincial government,
respectively. This tax can be utilized for a variety of social programs and public infrastructure. The
125% redesign case would also see business and employment opportunities for qualified local or
regional contractors and businesses during the design and construction phases. There would be job
opportunities for boilermakers, pipe fitters, iron workers, welders, electricians. Additionally, there
is the potential to reduce the carbon footprint of other oil sands facilities, by selling the additional
CO2 recovered to other facilities around the Fort McMurray area to be used for Enhanced Oil
Recovery, tailings management, or other Carbon Capture and Storage methods. Currently many
oil sands facilities around the Fort McMurray are purchasing CO2 from Edmonton which is
approximately 450 km away which is expensive and not environmentally friends due to the large
volume of trucks and fuel required for transport. Having a larger and more reliable supply of CO2
from the CNRL Horizon Facility would thus benefit other oil producers in the region.
2.4. Traffic
For the 125% redesign case, there may be increased traffic congestion and traffic safety
incidents as a result of bringing in capable workers to the site for construction. To mitigate this,
CNRL has a well-established transporation policy which requirese company and contractor
workers to travel to and from the site on buses. Additionally, the bulk of construction workers can
N-7
be housed in the on-site camp located at the CNRL Horizon Oil Sands facility which would
eliminate the traffic concerns from daily commuting.
2.5. Noise
For both the 125% and 112% redesign cases, there would be a marginal increase to noise
generated by the CO2 removal unit based on the pumps and compressors running at an increased
capacity. This increase would be very minimal, as no new mechanical equipment has been added
for either of the capacity increase cases. Furthermore, noise levels are measured on a logarithmic
scale, with a diminished effect when noise is generated from multiple sources. There should be no
additional concerns regarding noise for nearby residents or communities.
2.6. Air Quality

The additional CO2 recovery as a result of this project would decrease the overall GHG
emissions intensity of the CNRL Horizon Oil Sands facility and consequently improve upon the
baseline air quality around the facility. Additionally, the CNRL facility was designed with a high
standard for air quality, including low-NOx burner technology and hydro-desulphurization
reactors to achieve over 99% recovery of sulphur. The generation of airborne particulates and
emissions from mobile equipment fuel consumption as a result of project construction activities
could also be mitigated with dust mitigation programs and optimization of haul route distances.
N-8
References
1. Picard, David. Fugitive Emissions From Oil and Natural Gas Activities. Good Practice
Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
2. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GHG emissions reduction program. [Online] [Cited: April
5, 2019.] https://www.cnrl.com/corporate-responsibility/environment/climate-change/ghg-
emissions.
3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a
Typical Passenger Vehicle. [Online] March 2018. [Cited: April 6, 2019.]
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle.
4. Wilt, James. Canada Won't Perform an Environmental Review of Most New Oilsands
Projects. Here's Why. The Narwhal. [Online] December 18, 2018. [Cited: April 5, 2019.]
https://thenarwhal.ca/canada-wont-perform-an-environmental-review-of-most-new-oilsands-
projects-heres-why/.
5. Government of Canada. Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.
[Online] December 2016. [Cited: April 5, 2019.]
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/environment/documents/weather1/20170125-en.pdf.
6. Golder Associates. CNRL Horizon Project Environmental Impact Assessment. Oil Sands
Information Portal. [Online] June 2002. [Cited: April 5, 2019.] http://osip.alberta.ca/map/.
N-9
Appendix O: Pertinent Articles

Description
The purpose of this appendix is to present three articles pertinent to the project. These
articles from the open literature were consulted during the analysis of the project.
Table of Contents
1. Factors affecting CO2 absorption efficiency in packed column ........................................... O-1
2. Corrosion and materials selection for amine service .......................................................... O-11
3. Scale-up effects of CO2 capture by Methyldieathanolamine (MDEA) solutions in terms of
loading capacity ........................................................................................................................ O-16
List of References ..................................................................................................................... O-26
i
1. Factors affecting CO2 absorption efficiency in packed column
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
O-5
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
O-10
2. Corrosion and materials selection for amine service
O-11
O-12
O-13
O-14
O-15
3. Scale-up effects of CO2 capture by Methyldieathanolamine (MDEA)

solutions in terms of loading capacity
O-16
O-17
O-18
O-19
O-20
O-21
O-22
O-23
O-24
O-25
List of References
2. Corrosion and Materials Selection for Amine Service. Rennie, S. s.l. : Materials Forum, 2006,
Vol. 30.
Loading Capacity. Santos, Samuel P, Gomes, João F and Bordado, João C. 19, s.l. : MDPI,
2016, Vol. 4.
O-26
Appendix P: Email Correspondence

Description
This appendix includes the communication with CNRL through email correspondence for
the purposes of requesting documents and information, along with clarifying questions.
i
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-12
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-17
P-18
P-19
P-20
P-21
P-22

H - Team 05 - Final Copy of Report

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

H - Team 05 - Final Copy of Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revamp of CO2 Recovery Plant Final Report

Client: Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

excess CO2 produced by the CO2 Recovery Plant.

need to be C$79 /tCO2.

Fire and Explosion Index ............................................................................. 46

Appendix A: Decision Analysis................................................................................................... A1

Figure 3: Process Flow Diagram for the 125% Capacity Redesign.............................................. 17

Figure 4: Project Execution Schedule ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 5: Manpower Distribution for Engineering and Labour .................................................... 32

Figure 6: Fixed Capital Expenditure Breakdown ......................................................................... 34

Figure 9: NPV Tornado Diagram for the 125% Case ................................................................... 38

125% Case ................................................................................................................... 45

112% Case ................................................................................................................... 59

Table 5: 125% Case Overall Material Balance ............................................................................. 21

Table 6: 125% Case Overall Energy Balance ............................................................................... 22

Table 7: Summary of Column Specifications ............................................................................... 23

Table 8: Summary of Heat Exchanger Specifications .................................................................. 24

Table 9: Summary of Vessel Specifications ................................................................................. 25

Table 10: Summary of Pump Specifications ................................................................................ 25

Table 11: Summary of Compressor Specifications ...................................................................... 26

Table 13: Utility Cost Summary ................................................................................................... 36

Table 14: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table .................................................................. 44

Table 17: 112 % Case Overall Material Balance .......................................................................... 51

Table 18: 112 % Case Overall Energy Balance ............................................................................ 52

Table 19: Additional Utility Requirements................................................................................... 53

Table 20: Utility Cost Summary ................................................................................................... 55

Table 21: Chemical Exposure Index Summary Table .................................................................. 58

Table 23: Summary of Requirements for Redesign ...................................................................... 61

1. Introduction and Statement of Objectives

capacity should also be increased.

purchase Alberta-based carbon offset credits, or make a monetary contribution to Alberta’s

for CO2 generation above allocated limits.

production to ensure long-term sustainability of the industry (11). Environmental stewardship is a

Storage (CCS) (2; 17).

facilities in the Fort McKay area to increase profitability.

in lieu of the 115% capacity redesign.

with no potential for further increases without capital investment.

further increases in SCO production at Horizon Oil Sands.

increase in capacity using only existing equipment, requiring no capital cost.

standpoint but was investigated further at the request of the client.

economic analysis results.

5.2. Replacement of Plant with Gasification System

not cost-effective and was therefore rejected.

Rich Amine Vendor

E-80 E-81A/B/C E-82 E-83 E-84 G-81A/B G-82A/B/C G-83A/B G-84

C-80 C-81 C-82 C-83 C-87

Synthesis Gas to PSA

4 SEPARATION OF COMPRESSION STAGES FROM MAIN BODY EK 2019/03/08

6.1. Existing Process Design Description – Kaitlin

aMDEA consists of n-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and a piperazine activator. Piperazine is an

2 H2O ⇌ H3O+ + OH-

R3N + H3O+ ⇌ R3NH+ + H2O

CO2 + 2 H2O ⇌ HCO3- + H3O+

HCO3- + H2O ⇌ H3O+ + CO32-

CO2 + 2 H2O + R3N ⇌ R3NH+ + H3O+ + CO32-

to avoid entrainment of amine in the overhead gas.

consists of an upper flash section and lower stripping section.

Semilean Amine Pump (G-81A/B).

the CO2 Absorber.

separation models, heat exchanger areas, and number of compression stages.

Separation Model Verification

Areas of Heat Exchange Verification

Staged Compression Verification