OTC-26164-MS

Performance Analysis and Comparison of Membrane Permeation Versus

Supersonic Separators for CO2 Removal From a Plausible Natural Gas of
Libra Field, Brazil
L. O. Arinelli, J. L. de Medeiros, and O. Q. Araújo, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Copyright 2015, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 27–29 October 2015.

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

Abstract
Libra Field is a giant oil and gas offshore field situated in Santos Basin, at 200 km from southeastern
Brazil coast, 2200 m water depth and 5 km crust depth. The product of Libra is a 27°API oil with a
remarkable characteristic: an impressive gas/oil ratio of approximately 600 sm³/m³ with a CO2 content
over 40%mol. The extraction of this oil obligates the processing of such CO2 rich gas, which must end
with the reinjection of all CO2 into the field for environmental reasons and to sustain oil production. The
removal of CO2 and adequate destination of specified gas with minimum footprint – due to space and
weight constraints in offshore platforms – and energy consumption configure a central challenge in the
Libra scenario. A strategy involves the separation of CO2 from natural gas at the platform and the
transportation of the processed gas to shore via pipelines. Four alternatives of topside gas conditioning are
assessed in terms of final gas quality and energy demand, using a professional process simulator. The
conventional alternative (A) selects a Membrane Permeation (MP) train including TEG Dehydration and
JT Expansion for respectively adjusting water dew-point and hydrocarbon dew-point. Case B is devised
by using only a Supersonic Separator (3S) to treat the gas. The third alternative (C) uses 3S for dew points
adjustment and MP for CO2 removal. Case D also involves TEG absorption and JT Expansion, however,
CO2 removal is accomplished by a 3S. The results show that Case B could not completely specify the gas
stream, practically not changing the CO2 content. Case C is considered an improvement of Case A, since
it employed much less equipment and still presented a better quality natural gas, with 68% more liquid
extraction and 18% less energy consumption. Both cases reduced CO2 content to nearly 20%mol. Case
D confirms the potential application of 3S for CO2 removal from a dry gas at extremely low temperatures.
The final gas CO2 content was slightly higher (24%mol) and the energy demand increased 23% regarding
case A, due to the high pressure required. However, the CO2 rich stream in this case is at higher pressure,
which means less compression power required for reinjection application.

Introduction
In the last eight years, Brazil has announced several oil and gas discoveries in offshore fields located under
the salt layer, in the so called pre-salt region. At some areas, the salt layer can be as thick as 2.000 m and
2 OTC-26164-MS

the pre-salt depth reaches up to seven thousand meters under sea level (Petrobras, 2011). The oil
discovered in these fields is of high quality and commercial value. Moreover, there is large volume of
associated natural gas (NG).
However, the exploration in deep water fields also brings some challenges due to the distance from
coast (over 200 km). Since there is a large accumulation of natural gas in the reservoirs, the oil production
is associated to a high rate of gas that must have a destination. The best solution would probably be to
send NG to onshore facilities for processing and commercialization. The transportation from the offshore
deepwater platforms would have to be through subsea high-pressure pipelines and raw natural gas presents
components that in these severe conditions can cause obstruction and damage during transportation.
Therefore, at least a pre-treatment step of natural gas processing would have to be installed in offshore
facilities to guarantee dew point specifications and prevent the formation of hydrates or condensates,
besides removal of acid gases, such as H2S and CO2. However, high gas flow rates demand large
equipment dimensions, which is a great issue in offshore platforms due to space and weight constraints.
Hence, process optimization and alternative technologies that can contribute to reducing the footprint
required for gas conditioning while optimizing energy consumption is a challenge. Another issue is the
high content of CO2 found in these reservoirs. Gaffney, Cline & Associates (2010) reported CO2 contents
between 10 and 79% in an evaluation study of ten Pre-Salt discoveries in Campos Basin.
The Brazilian national petroleum company, Petrobras, has announced in its Business Plan that the
Pre-Salt oil and gas exploration would contribute to at least double its daily production rate until 2020.
As an example, when discovered in late 2006, Lula Field represented probably the greatest oil discovery
in the Ocidental Hemisphere over the last 30 years, estimated in 5 to 8 billions of equivalent barrels
(Honeywell 2012, Petrobras 2011). Furthermore, the Pre-Salt daily production record exceeded 800
thousand barrels per day in early 2015, only eight years after the first discovery and with 39 production
wells in operation. In other fields in Brazil and around the world, this production rate took over ten or
twenty years to be achieved and counted on more than 100 wells in operation (Petrobras, 2015).
Discovered in 2010, Libra Field is the largest oil and gas reserve ever found in Brazil: it is estimated
in 4 to 15 billions of equivalent barrels of oil (Petrobras, 2011). It is also located in Santos Basin, at about
200 km from southeastern Brazilian coast. The first analysis reported a high quality oil of 27º API
(Petrobras, 2014). The expectation is that the production peak of 1.4 billions of bpd will be achieved in
the next decade, counting on 12 to 18 production platforms (Reuters, 2013). There is already a pilot FPSO
being commissioned for the extended well test campaign, scheduled for the second half of 2016 (Oil&Gas
Journal, 2014).
Moreover, the Brazilian natural gas reserves would double if the estimated amount is confirmed – total
560 to 840 billions m³ of gas, corresponding to 310 to 470 billions m³ of natural gas. The discrepancy
between the total amount of gas and NG itself is the high content of CO2 found in the reservoirs, about
44% (Estadao, 2014). The exploration in Libra field is estimated to have an impressive gas/oil ratio of
approximately 600 sm³/m³. Therefore, for oil production in this field there must also be a processing unit
for this rich CO2 gas. The produced natural gas can have distinct destinations, such as utilization as fuel
gas in the platform or exportation through pipelines for further conditioning and commercialization. The
separated CO2 would be reinjected into the field for environmental reasons and to support oil production.
This paper addresses offshore gas processing alternatives for CO2 separation from a plausible Libra
Field gas stream. Four different routes are proposed, simulated and compared in terms of gas conditioning
performance and energy consumption. The conventional route includes dew point adjustments through
TEG dehydration and JT Expansion, and CO2 removal thorugh a Membrane Permeation (MP) train. Three
non-conventional schemes are assessed combining these operations and a Supersonic Separator (3S).
OTC-26164-MS 3

Procedures

Four alternatives are considered in this study: (A) a conventional alternative comprising TEG
absorption, JT Expansion and MP; (B) a non-conventional alternative applying only 3S to treat the gas;
(C) a scheme using 3S to adjust gas dew points, followed by MP train to remove CO2; (D) an alternative
using TEG absorption and JT expansion to adjust dew points and 3S for CO2 removal.
The steady state simulations were carried out in a professional simulation software (Aspentech
HYSYS), using Peng-Robinson EOS. In the alternatives in which TEG absorption was applied, Glycol
Package was used in TEG regeneration loop.
Membrane Permeation
Among the technologies for CO2 separation from NG, MP is appropriated for cases with medium to
high CO2 content. This fact associated to the physical aspects of low footprint and weight required (when
compared to other technologies) contributed to the selection of MP for several Pre-Salt FPSO projects
announced over the last years (Honeywell 2012, Industry News 2013). Moreover, MP presents other
advantages, such as low unitary cost, modularity, easy installation, operation and scale-up, low environ-
mental impact and no use of chemicals. In 2015, Arinelli et. al investigated the dynamic behavior of a
similar gas conditioning conventional alternative for a plausible Pre-Salt gas stream with 20%mol. of CO2.
A MP train was applied for CO2 removal, successfully achieving the required gas specification with low
impact in the final gas dynamic behavior due to its pseudo-stationary operation. However, the CO2 content
found in Libra Field is over 40%mol., which is higher than other Pre-Salt discoveries until now. Therefore,
it is important to analyze MP performance in this new scenario to evaluate if it is still applicable.
Since it is a relatively new technology, membrane separation is not available in HYSYS unit operations
set. Therefore, an external Unit Operation Extension (UOE) developed in VB programming language by
Arinelli (2015) was used to represent and calculate MP operation in the simulation. The UOE requires that
the feed stream is completely specified, while the user inputs for calculation are membrane permeation
area and products pressures. The extension model uses a Newton-Raphson algorithm to estimate
component permeation fluxes via log mean of fugacity differences across the membrane:
(1)

(2)

Supersonic Separation
The Supersonic Separator (3S) is a compact tubular device that accelerates the fluid over the sound
velocity, achieving great pressure and temperature drops and thus forming a condensate phase. The
condensed drops are separated due to the centrifugal force created by vanes located in the device entrance
and are collected at side exits. These high intensity thermodynamic and kinectics effects are created in the
Laval Nozzle section of the device, comprising a convergent and a divergent sections separated by the
throat (Figure 1). Usually the Mach Number is used to describe the flow through the 3S: in the convergent
section it is a subsonic flow (Ma⬍1), achieving sonic flow at the throat (Ma⫽1) and supersonic velocities
in the divergent section (Ma⬎1). The transformation of part of the fluid enthalpy in kinectic energy during
acceleration in only miliseconds is what creates the deep temperature drop, provoking condensation of
heavier components. However, the supersonic flow is unstable due to the low pressure inside the separator
compared to the downstream conditions. Therefore, this growing instability collapses the supersonic flow
into subsonic flow with a sudden and sharp increase in temperature and pressure (Fox, McDonald e
Pritchard, 2006). This phenomenon is known as Normal Shockwave and usually occurs when the flow
reaches approximately Ma⫽2. Hence, an adequate 3S project must guarantee that the position of the
4 OTC-26164-MS

condensate phase collection device is upstream the Shockwave Front, in order to prevent the components
revaporization. After the Shockwave, a subsonic flow is restablished and the fluid continuously deceler-
ates, gaining pressure and temperature until the end of the separator. Figure 2 depicts the fluid pressure,
temperature and velocity profiles along the supersonic separator.

Figure 1—Supersonic Separator axial profile. Source: Adapted from Feygin et. al (2006)

Figure 2—Pressure, temperature and velocity profiles along the 3S. Source: Adapted from Arinelli (2015)

Among the advantages of supersonic separation, the low footprint and weight required is of great
relevance. Moreover, it has low capital and operating costs, low environmental impact, no rotating parts
(less demand for maintainance) and no use of chemicals. Its main application so far is for gas Water Dew
Point (WDP) and Hydrocarbon Dew Point (HCDP) adjustments. It is capable of producing a final gas
stream of better quality and using considerably less equipment than convetional processes, since it
achieves both dew point specifications in only one compact device (Arinelli, 2015). However, supersonic
separation also has a potential for CO2 separation from NG. This route is still being studied due to the
complexity of CO2 behavior. The 3S would have to be designed to achieve an impressive temperature
drop in order to enter the biphase region of the phase envelope and thus condense CO2. Therefore, the inlet
temperature of the feed stream must also be extremely low (Upstream, 2012).
Once again, the Supersonic Separator is a modern technology and it is not available in HYSYS unit
operations set. Hence, a 3S UOE developed in VB by Arinelli (2015) was used in the simulations to
represent the supersonic technology. The extension requires that the feed stream is completely specified
and user inputs are: inlet/outlet diameters and convergent/divergent angles. The throat diameter is
calculated iteratively to match sonic flow inside the separator, i.e. the extension provides the ideal 3S
OTC-26164-MS 5

design. The UOE adopts rigorous thermodynamic modeling of compressible one-dimensional flow
through a converging-diverging nozzle. Rigorous phase-split and phase equilibrium algorithms are
executed with Peng-Robinson EOS along the 3S, allowing precise calculation of liquid segregation.
The calculation methodology is based in small steps of expansion, thus cooling and accelerating the
fluid, until it reaches Ma⫽2.0 – selected criterion for Shockwave phenomenon. The supersonic separator
presents an almost isentropic operation, so an adiabatic efficiency of 90% was used in the expansions,
which is a plausible value, according to Kidnay and Parrish (2006). Before entering in the shockwave
front, the condensed phase is separated from the main stream through flash calculation. The shock
phenomenon is attained via mass, energy and momentum closure conditions to estimate temperature and
pressure recoveries across the shock:
(3)

(4)

(5)

The final procedure comprises small steps of compression, decelerating the fluid and increasing its
temperature until it reaches the end of the separator, determining the final gas state.

Process Alternatives
Assumptions The inlet stream is a plausible Libra Field gas stream and its composition is exhibited in
Table 1. The inlet conditions are those of a typical offshore three-phase gas/oil/water separator: 25 bar and
40ºC. The gas stream is saturated with water after separation from liquid phase, so the HYSYS “Saturate
Unit Operation” tool was applied to obtain the NG stream for conditioning. Its composition is also
presented in Table 1.

Table 1—Inlet gas and saturated gas streams compositions

Component Gas Saturated Gas

Methane 50.00% 49.82%

Ethane 3.00% 2.99%
Propane 2.00% 1.99%
CO2 44.00% 43.84%
H2O 0.00% 0.36%
C4⫹ 1.00% 1.00%

The inlet flow rate is based on that reported for the pilot FPSO that will carry out the extended well
test campaign at Libra Field: 50.000 b/d of oil and 5 MMscmd of gas (Oil&Gas Journal, 2014). Hence,
the inlet mass flow rate is about 265 ton/h.
The Brazilian National Agency of Oil, Gas and Biofuels (ANP) is responsible for regulating natural gas
specifications. According to the regulations, the required dew points and CO2 content specifications are
those presented in Table 2. However, since the CO2 content in the inlet NG stream is over 40%mol., the
first approach is to reduce it to at most 20%mol., considering that below this level it could already be used
at least as fuel gas for the own platform operation. If desired, this final NG stream could also be sent to
other facilities to achieve ANP specification for sales.
6 OTC-26164-MS

Table 2—Brazilian regulation requirements for natural gas. Source: ANP (2008)
Property Unit Value (Southeastern Brazil)

°
WDP at 1.01 bar, max. C -45
°
HCDP at 45 bar, max. C 0
CO2 Content, max. % mol. 3.0

The cold utility used for heat exchangers is cooling water from the sea, since it is an offshore
environment. For heaters, compressors and pumps, the utility is electric energy (power), which will be
considered for energy assessment.
Case A The first case corresponds to the conventional alternative, including steps of dehydration by
TEG absorption, HCDP adjustment by JT Expansion and CO2 removal by MP. The flowsheet of the
proposed process is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3—Case A process flowsheet

The saturated gas first passes through a compression step to reach about 60 bar, which is the absorber
operating pressure. The gas stream is admitted at the bottom of the column at 35ºC and flows in
counter-current to the glycol solvent. The top product corresponds to a dry gas, while the bottom outlet
is a TEG stream rich with water, which follows to a solvent regeneration step. The regenerator is a
reboiled atmospheric stripper that works at higher temperatures (140ºC). Therefore, a valve and heat
exchangers are applied to guarantee that the solvent stream reaches the appropriate conditions for
regeneration. A flash tank is also used to remove the gas phase that may have been formed after pressure
drop. A small part of the dry gas is separated to be used as a stripping gas at the regenerator in order to
improve the solvent purification. The regenerated solvent is cooled in a heat exchanger while heating the
rich glycol before regeneration, promoting heat integration in the process. A make up stream is added
accordingly to the TEG loss at the top of the regenerator to guarantee material closure in the loop. Finally,
the solvent stream is pumped back to the process.
After dehydration, the gas stream is compressed to favour the HCDP adjustment. Then, it is cooled and
expanded in a JT valve, reaching about -11ºC. The liquid phase is extracted in a low temperature separator
(LTS), forming the NGL stream – Natural Gas Liquids. Gas is then heated in a gas/gas heat exchanger
and follows to the next step of processing. Two membrane modules with permeation areas of 250.000 m³
are applied in series in order to remove CO2 from the NG stream. The permeate product pressure is 4 bar
in both modules and the streams are mixed, producing a final CO2 rich stream that is designated for
OTC-26164-MS 7

reinjection – Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The pressure drop from feed to the retentate stream is 1 bar
in both modules, so the final NG stream is 53 bar and has a higher content of methane.
Case B The second case has the objective to evaluate if the Supersonic Separator alone is able to remove
CO2 along with the other condensable components – water and heavier hydrocarbons – from a NG stream
rich in this acid gas. Case B flowsheet is exhibited in Figure 4. Firstly, the saturated gas is compressed,
achieving high pressure (87 bar) to favour the separation. The 3S UOE was applied and the input geometry
data was: 0.15 and 0.10 m for inlet and outlet diameters, respectively, and 15º and 2.75º for convergent
and divergent section angles, respectively. The separator produces two streams: condensate, containing
the liquid phase formed in the separator and the final gas.

Figure 4 —Case B process flowsheet

Case C Since the main application of Supersonic Separation is dew points adjustment and considering
that it uses far less equipment than the conventional processes, Case C was proposed as an enhancement
for Case A, replacing TEG absorption and JT Expansion processes for 3S, and maintaining MP for CO2
removal. This alternative scheme is presented in Figure 5. The input data for 3S and MP extensions were
the same as the ones considered in both previous cases.

Figure 5—Case C process flowsheet

Case D Supersonic separation is known to be capable of successfully achieving gas specifications in

terms of dew points. In Case D, the objective is to evaluate the 3S ability to remove only CO2 from an
already processed gas stream. Therefore, the MP modules from Case A were replaced for a 3S step, in
order to compare the performance of these unit operations in terms of CO2 extraction (Figure 6). The dew
points adjustment processes and parameters are exactly the same as in the conventional alternative. In this
case, after the JT gas/gas heat exchanger, a compressor and a cooler are used to reach high pressure and
low temperature for supersonic separation of CO2 – 89 bar and -15º C. The 3S extension input data was
the same used in previous cases.
8 OTC-26164-MS

Figure 6 —Case D process flowsheet

Results
Table 3 presents the results of final gas conditions and composition for all cases. Case A and Case C both
used MP to extract CO2 from the gas stream, differing only in the WDP/HCDP adjustment processes. The
final gas results were similar, although the second one presented a better quality overall – slightly higher
CH4 content, less CO2 and C4⫹, besides lower dew points – using much less equipment. Case C results
show clearly that the supersonic separator alone is not able to remove CO2 from NG while also adjusting
gas dew points. This task was successfully accomplished, achieving WDP and HCDP values far below the
required specifications, however, there was practically no change in CO2 content. On the other hand, Case
D confirms the 3S potential for CO2 extraction from NG, when applied to a stream already specified in
dew points and with considerably low temperature. The fluid reached the temperature of -60º C at 19 bar
just before Shockwave condition, thus successfully condensing CO2. The final gas stream presented a
higher CO2 content when compared to cases A and C, but it is still near the 20%mol. target. Moreover,
the C2⫹ content is less than a half of those obtained in the other two cases and methane content is almost
the same. In addition, it presented the lowest HCDP of all cases. The WDP calculation in HYSYS returned
an ⬍empty⬎ value, which means it could not be obtained. Water content in this stream was in the order
of 10-8 (mole fraction), thus probably the software considers this value negligible for dew point calculation
– while in all the other cases it was in the order of 10-5. Hence, Case D also presents a better performance
in gas dehydration.

Table 3—Final gas stream conditions in each case

Case A Case B Case C Case D

P (bar) 53.00 55.66 53.66 27.80

T (°C) 11.82 29.60 12.82 -33.99
Mass Flow (ton/h) 133.60 246.21 127.11 128.24
WDP at 1.01 bar -54.43 -62.33 -59.51 ⬍empty⬎
HCDP at 45 bar -4.34 -22.34 -31.01 -43.85
Methane 71.79% 51.91% 73.57% 72.81%
Ethane 4.46% 2.91% 4.43% 2.53%
Propane 2.79% 1.53% 2.33% 0.62%
CO2 19.97% 43.36% 19.25% 23.99%
H2O 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
C4⫹ 0.99% 0.28% 0.43% 0.05%
OTC-26164-MS 9

The liquid phase extracted from NG in cases A and C, i.e. NGL from JT vessel and Condensate from
3S, are displayed in Table 4. The Condensate stream has a condiserably lower content of methane, with
increased presence of C2⫹ – 30%mol. against 23%mol. in the conventional scheme. This is an important
factor, because these components have higher individual value when separated from NG. Ethane and
propane are valuable raw material of high demand for the petrochemical industry. LPG (Liquified
Petroleum Gas – mainly propane and butane) is another product that could be extracted from this stream
for sales. Besides, the supersonic separation produced a higher mass flow rate of liquids – about 68% more
– due to the lower temperature achieved inside the separator (-39ºC).

Table 4 —Liquid streams obtaines in Case A and Case C

Component Case A - NGL Case C - Condensate

Methane 21.62% 10.25%

Ethane 4.38% 4.50%
Propane 6.81% 10.66%
CO2 55.37% 52.88%
H2O 0.02% 7.18%
C4⫹ 11.80% 14.52%

The CO2 Rich stream in Cases A and C were practically the same, having almost 90% of CO2 in the
composition and could be directed for compression to EOR. On the other hand, the CO2 Condensate
stream obtained in Case D has a higher flow rate and a lower CO2 content (78%mol.), since there was also
condensation of more C2⫹ components from NG, representing about 10%mol. of the liquids extracted.
This stream is at -60ºC, which is the temperature achieved just before Shockwave. Therefore, it would
have to pass through heating and phase separation before following to compression for EOR. After this
steps, the gas stream would be richer in CO2, while more C2⫹ content is extracted for sales. Another
important aspect is that the CO2 Condensate stream in the 3S outlet is at 28 bar, while the mixed permeate
stream from MP in the other two cases is at 4 bar. This means that in Case D, less compression steps and
energy demand would be required for compression to EOR, representing a gain for this application.
The total electric energy demand used in pumps, compressors and heaters for each case is exhibited in
Figure 7. Despite requiring a higher compression power at the beginning of the process, Case C reduced
in 18% the energy consumption relatively to Case A, since it uses only the 3S to adjust gas dew points,
dismissing any other power demand than the first compression step. The energy demand in Case D
represents an increase of 23% over Case A due to the higher pressure required for 3S compared to MP,
demanding one more compression step (K-400). However, if a first step of supersonic separation was
applied in Case D replacing the conventional processes, the energy demand would decrease similarly to
Case C, making this alternative more attractive energetically.
10 OTC-26164-MS

Figure 7—Electric energy consumption in each case

Conclusions
Libra field is the largest oil and gas field discovered in Brazilian Pre-Salt so far, presenting a huge amount
of gas with CO2 content over 40%mol. Finding gas conditioning and CO2 removal processes with
minimum footprint and energy consumption requirements is a great challenge for Libra field exploration.
Therefore, four Cases were assessed in this study involving dew points adjustment via conventional
processes (TEG dehydration and JT Expansion) or supersonic separation and CO2 extraction using MP or
3S.
The 3S UOE was successfully applied in Cases B, C and D, presenting saticfactory results. The
Supersonic Separator alone could not produce a completely specified natural gas. Despite achieving the
required dew points, there was almost no change in CO2 content. On the other hand, the replacement of
the conventional WDP and HCDP adjustment scheme in Case A for the 3S in case C presented remarkable
advantages. There was an increase in the conditioned gas quality and a decrease of 18% in energy
consumption. Additionally, it produced 68% more liquids with higher C2⫹ content, which can also be a
revenue source. Therefore, Case C is considered an improvement of Case A. In Case D, the application
of 3S for CO2 removal from a conditioned gas at considerably low temperature was successful, despite
producing a final gas with a slightly higher CO2 content than in Cases A and C (24% against 20%mol).
The energy demand in this case was the highest due to the high pressure requirement for 3S. However,
if another supersonic separator replaced the conventional dew point adjustments scheme in Case D, there
would be a gain in energy consumption, such as in Case C. Moreover, the CO2 rich stream obtained in
3S has higher pressure than the produced in MP, which is an advantage for its reinjection, since it would
require less compression steps.
In terms of specification, all cases were able to achieve the required dew points by Brazilian
regulations. On the other hand, since CO2 content in Libra gas stream is extremely high, it was considered
a level of 20%mol. as target for the gas conditioning cases, which would be enough to enable its use as
fuel gas in the platform. However, the ANP CO2 content requirement of 3%mol. would not possible to
reach only with MP or 3S in a topside process. If desired, the final gas stream obtained at the platform
could be transported to other facilities for further processing, achieving the specification for sales.

Acknowledgement
Financial support of PETROBRAS S.A., FINEP-Brazil, ANP-Brazil (PRH-ANP/MCT via PRH-13 of
Escola de Química/UFRJ) and CNPq-Brazil.
OTC-26164-MS 11

Nomenclature
⌬P ⫽ Pressure difference across membrane
A ⫽ Membrane permeation area
D ⫽ Diameter
F ⫽ Molar flow
⫽ Molar enthalpy
L ⫽ Permeation rate
MM ⫽ Molecular mass
P ⫽ Pressure
v ⫽ Velocity
U ⫽ Permeance
Z ⫽ Overall mole fraction

Greek symbols
␳ ⫽ Density
⌬␲LN ⫽ Log mean of fugacity differences

Subscripts
AS ⫽ After shockwave
BS ⫽ Before shockwave
G ⫽ Gas
i ⫽ Component

References
ANP - Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. 2008. Resolução ANP nº 16.
Brasília, Brasil, June 17.
Arinelli, L. O. 2015. Dynamics of CO2 Rich Natural Gas Offshore Processing: TEG Dehydration,
Joule-Thomson Expansion and Membrane Permeation Versus Supersonic Separator. MSc Thesis.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UFRJ/EQ.
Arinelli, L. O., Araujo, O. Q. F., de Medeiros, J. L. 2015. Dynamic simulation and analysis of slug
flow impact on offshore natural gas processing: TEG dehydration, Joule-Thomson expansion and
membrane separation. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 37 (01): 1775–1780. http://dx.do-
i.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63577-8.50141-8
Estadao. 2014. Campo de Libra pode dobrar reservas de gás do País. Retrieved from: http://
economia.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,campo-de-libra-pode-dobrar-reservas-de-gas-do-pais,186158e.
Feygin, V., Imayev, S., Alfyorov, V. et al 2006. Supersonic Gas Technologies. Presented at the 23rd
World Gas Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands, 5 – 9 June. International Gas Union 23rd World
Gas Conference Proceedings 1 (01): 162–168.
Fox, R. W., McDonald, A. T., Pritchard, P. J. 2006. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. 6th Edition. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Gaffney, Cline & Associates. 2010. Exame e Avaliação de Dez Descobertas e Prospectos Selecionadas
no Play do Pré-sal em Águas Profundas na Bacia de Santos, Brasil. CG/JW/RLG/C1820.00/
GCABA.1914, ANP, Brazil, September 15.
Honeywell. 2012. Honeywell UOP technology is used to clean natural gas on FPSO vessels.
Membrane Technology - News, January: 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0958-2118(12)70011-3
Industry News. 2013. Petrobras selects Honeywell’s UOP membrane technology. Filtration ⫹
Separation. 50 (4): 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(13)70139-3
12 OTC-26164-MS

Kidnay, A. J., Parrish, W. R. 2006. Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Oil&Gas Journal. 2014. Petrobras signs LOI to charter FPSO for Libra field. Retrieved from:
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/10/petrobras-signs-loi-to-charter-fpso-for-libra-field.html
Petrobras. 2011. Profundo futuro. Retrieved from: http://www.petrobras.com/pt/magazine/post/pro-
fundo-futuro.htm
Petrobras. 2014. Concluímos a perfuração do primeiro poço de extensão do Consórcio de Libra.
Retrieved from: http://www.petrobras.com.br/fatos-e-dados/concluimos-a-perfuracao-do-primeiro-
poco-de-extensao-do-consorcio-de-libra.htm
Petrobras. 2015. Pre-Salt. Retrieved from: http://www.petrobras.com.br/pt/nossas-atividades/areas-de-
atuacao/exploracao-e-producao-de-petroleo-e-gas/pre-sal/
Reuters. 2013. Pico de produção de Libra pode ser atingido em até 15 anos — ANP. Retrieved from:
http://br.reuters.com/article/topNews/idBRSPE99G07U20131017
Upstream. 2012. Tunu deal is the next leap ahead for Twister. Upstream - Technology: 98 –99.
Retrieved from: http://twisterbv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tunu_upstream_2012-04-27-
98-99.pdf