Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research

  
University of Carthage
  
National Institute of Applied
Sciences and Technologies

End of year project

Branch: Industrial Chemistry
Level: 4th year
Topic:

Natural Gas Sweetening with Aspen HYSYS:

An optimization approach

Prepared by:
Temtem Hanen
Jeri Ferdaws
Khemiri Ines
Toumi Tassnim
Ben Khlifa Mariem

Supervised by : Ms. Abdelmoumen Souhir

Academic year: 2022/2023

 Content
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
I. Natural Gas ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
I. 1. Definition ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
I.2. Composition .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
I.3. Impurities: ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
II. Overview of NAWARA station................................................................................................................................... 11
II.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
II.2. Key Components and Processes at the NAWARA Station ..................................................................................... 11
III. Simulation with ASPEN HYSYS V.10 ...................................................................................................................... 14
III.1. Introduction to ASPEN HYSYS V.10 ....................................................................................................................... 14
III.2. Gas Sweetening Process description .................................................................................................................... 14
III. 2.1. Selection of alkanolamine ................................................................................................................................. 14
III.2.2. MDEA concentration.......................................................................................................................................... 15
III.2.3. MDEA circulation rate ........................................................................................................................................ 15
III.2.4. Lean MDEA temperature ................................................................................................................................... 15
III.3. Gas Sweetening Process simulation ..................................................................................................................... 16
III.3.1. modelling instructions: ...................................................................................................................................... 16
III.3.2. Analysis of Results.............................................................................................................................................. 28
IV. Comprehensive analysis of key factors................................................................................................................. 30
IV.1. Validation of simulation results ............................................................................................................................ 30
IV.2. Effect of feed raw Gas temperature: .................................................................................................................... 31
IV.3. Effect of MDEA concentration .............................................................................................................................. 32
IV.4. Effect of lean MDEA circulation rate .................................................................................................................... 32
IV.5. Effect of lean MDEA temperature ........................................................................................................................ 33
IV.6. Effect of reflux ratio .............................................................................................................................................. 34
IV.7. Effect of boiler ratio.............................................................................................................................................. 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Bibliographic references and Netography ........................................................................................................................ 37

2
 Table of illustrations
Figure 1 : schematic geology of natural gas resources [2].......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Road Map of the Study Area [7] ................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3 : fracking chart [8] ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4: component definition .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: choice of fluid package............................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Sour Gas feed parameters ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: defining the inlet and outlet of the filter ................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8: Process Flow Diagram of the filter........................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: absorber’s parameters ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 10: Process Flow Diagram of the filter ........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 11: the expansion valve’s pressure drop ..................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: the flash tank’s outlet and inlet.............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 13: Process Flow Diagram of the flash Tank ................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 14: the heat exchanger’s parameters ......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Process Flow Diagram of the heat exchanger ....................................................................................................... 22
Figure 16: the stripper’s parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 17: Process Flow Diagram of the heat exchanger ....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 18: lean solvent booster pump parameters ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 19: Mixer parameters .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 20: Air cooler parameters ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 21: lean solvent charge pump parameters .................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 22: Developed Aspen HYSYS process flow-sheet for LPG sweetening. ....................................................................... 27
Figure 23: Effect of raw gas temperature on acid gases concentration in sweet gas ............................................................ 31
Figure 24: the effect of MDEA concentration......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 25: the effect of lean MDEA flow rate ......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 26: the effect of lean MDEA temperature ................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 27: effect of reflux ratio ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 28: effect of boiler ratio ............................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 1 : typical composition of natural gas [3]........................................................................................................................ 9

Table 2: the composition of sour NG stream .................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3: Simulation results ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 4:Comparison of simulation results of sweet gas and the required specifications[report] ................................... 30

3
 ABBREVIATIONS
CPF: Central Processing Facility
DEA diethanolamine
GTP: Gas Treatment Plant
LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas
MDEA: methyldiethanolamine
MEA: monoethanolamine
NG: Natural Gas
OMV: Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung (Austrian mineral oil administration)
OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL : permissible exposure limit
TEA triethanolamine
TOC: Tunisian Oil Company
TOE: Tons of Oil Equivalent
TRAPSA: Trans Saharan Pipeline Company

4
 Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Ms. ABDELMOUMEN Souhir, who has
been our academic supervisor throughout this project. her guidance, encouragement, and expertise have
been invaluable to us, and we could not have completed this project without their support.
We are also grateful to National Institute of Applied Sciences and Technologies (INSAT) for
providing us with an exceptional learning environment and the resources we needed to pursue our
academic and professional goals. The university has not only equipped us with the knowledge and skills
we need to succeed in our field but also, its purpose is to make us polyvalent engineers and has
broadened our perspectives and enriched our academic experience.

5
 Introduction
Natural gas is a prime source of energy, which is widely used as an industrial and domestic fuel.
It has experienced remarkable growth as a fossil energy source since the 1970s, and it now ranks as the
fifth-largest source of global energy consumption.
Tunisia is among the countries struggling to meet their daily natural gas demands. As of 2017,
Tunisia ranked 57th globally in proven natural gas reserves, representing only 0.033% of the world's total
reserves. Despite this, Tunisia's consumption surpasses its production. As a result, the country relies
heavily on natural gas imports, with 65% of its supply coming from Algeria.[1]
Many Tunisian’s gas treatment plants (Miskar-Gabes, Nawara-Tatouine,Hasdrubal-sfax…etc) aim
to make natural gas suitable and environmentally safe to use. Because, it is crucial to purify it from all
contaminants (exp: the acid gases of hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) …etc) that can affect
its utilization and optimal energy capacity. Thus, they may cause problems such as corrosion, freezing,
plugging, erosion, health and environmental hazards.
The process for removing H2S and CO2 from a natural gas stream is referred to as gas
sweetening. With the increasingly strict environmental regulations on emissions from natural gas
treatment plants and also the market demand for high quality natural gas, the gas sweetening process has
become mandatory.
There are several methods for the natural gas sweetening such as: Membrane Separation,
Pressure Swing Adsorption, Cryogenic Distillation and Chemical Conversion. The most widely used
method for acid gases removal is amine gas sweetening process with more than 50% of the current acid
gas removal technologies use aqueous solutions of alkanolamines.
Nonetheless, this gas sweetening process is energy intensive especially for amine
regeneration. Therefore, optimizing the amine gas sweetening process could result in great energy savings
and thus remarkable economic benefits for the existing gas sweetening plants. tertiary amine
(methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)) has several advantages over primary and secondary amines, which will
be focused on in this work.
Therefore, this work is pursuing to both quantitatively and qualitatively study the reduction
of energy consumption in an existing amine gas sweetening plant (NAWARA-TATOUINE) using Aspen
HYSYS V.10 as a simulation tool in order to optimize its performance keeping H2S and CO2 concentration in
treated natural gas under the allowable discharge concentration.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of natural gas sweetening, focusing on the
impact of key factors using Aspen HYSYS v.10. The report is divided into three main parts. First, an
introduction to natural gas is presented, highlighting its composition and its impurities. Second, the
NAWARA station is introduced as a case study, outlining its purpose and role in gas sweetening
operations. Third, a simulation using Aspen HYSYS v.10 is conducted to model the sweetening process,
followed by a study of impact of key factors to ensure about efficiency and optimal conditions. Finally, a conclusion
summarizes the findings and emphasizes the importance of optimization in natural gas sweetening processes.

6
 Part I
Natural Gas

7
 In the 1st chapter, an overview of Natural Gas NG will be developed:

I. Natural Gas
I. 1. Definition:
Natural gas is a fossil fuel that is primarily composed of methane gas and also contain small
amounts of other hydrocarbons, such as ethane, propane, and butane. It is formed from the remains of
ancient plants and animals that were buried and subjected to heat and pressure over millions of years.
In some places, natural gas moved into large cracks and spaces between layers of overlying rock.
The natural gas found in these types of formations is sometimes called conventional natural gas. In other
places, natural gas occurs in the tiny pores (spaces) within some formations of shale, sandstone, and
other types of sedimentary rock. This natural gas is referred to as shale gas or tight gas, and it is
sometimes called unconventional natural gas. Natural gas also occurs with deposits of crude oil and it is
called associated natural gas. Natural gas deposits are found on land, and some are offshore and deep
under the ocean floor. Natural gas found in coal deposits is called coal bed methane.
The distribution of natural gas geology resources is depicted in the following image:

Figure 1 : schematic geology of natural gas resources [2]

Natural gas is typically extracted from underground reservoirs and transported through pipelines
(Gazoduc) to be used as a fuel source for heating, electricity generation, and industrial processes. It is
considered to be a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel compared to coal and oil, as it produces fewer
emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and dioxide of carbone. However, natural gas is still a
significant contributor to GreenHouse gas emissions and climate change, as methane itself is a potent
greenhouse gas.

8
 I.2. Composition:
The exact composition of natural gas can vary depending on the source and processing method
used. Even wells right next to each other in the same formation can have variations to the composition.
the typical range for the composition of natural gas is shown in the table below:

Table 1 : typical composition of natural gas [3]

I.3. Impurities:
The natural gas may contain many impurities that affect its quality but what we will be focused on in this
work are (you can find the toxicological sheets in the references):
H2S: Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a toxic and corrosive gas that is often present in natural gas. It has a
characteristic odour of rotten eggs at low concentrations, but at high concentrations, it can quickly lead to
unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and even death. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has set the permissible exposure limit for H2S at 10 ppm vapor-phase maximum. [4]

CO2: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colourless, odourless, and non-toxic gas that is present in natural gas.
However, it can still have negative impacts on both human health and the environment. CO2 is a major contributor
to global warming and climate change, and can cause health problems at high concentrations. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set the permissible exposure limit for CO 2 at 0.5% volume in vapor-
phase maximum [5].

9
 Part II
NAWARA/
GABES
STATION

10
 In the 2nd chapter, an overview of NAWARA/GABES plant will be developed:

II. Overview of NAWARA station:

II.1. Introduction:
the NAWARA gas field is located in the southern region of Tunisia, in the TATAOUINE governorate.
The field was discovered in 2002 by the Austrian oil and gas company OMV and is estimated to contain
approximately 260 billion cubic feet of natural gas reserves.
The project to develop the NAWARA gas field began in 2010 and involved the construction of a gas
processing plant, known as the Central Processing Facility (CPF), and a pipeline network to transport the
gas to the national grid. The project has been a collaboration between the Tunisian government and
international partners, including OMV and the Spanish energy company Repsol [6].

In southern Tunisia, the NAWARA plant transports pre-treated natural gas to the Gas Treatment
Plant (GTP) located in the GHANNOUCH industrial zone of GABES. The GTP includes facilities for NG
transport and processing, where the natural gas is treated using the amine sweeting process, the project
area is accessible through the existing roads and tracks leading to the project site as depicted in the
picture below:

Figure 2: Road Map of the Study Area [7]

II.2. Key Components and Processes at the NAWARA Station:

The purification process carried out at the NAWARA gas processing plant involves several steps to remove
impurities from the raw natural gas extracted from the NAWARA gas field following the steps:
✓ Fracking (hydraulic fracturing):
is a technique used to extract natural gas and oil from shale rock formations deep underground. The process
involves drilling a wellbore vertically into the earth, and then horizontally through the shale formation. A mixture of
water, sand, and chemicals is then injected at high pressure into the wellbore to create fractures in the rock
formation. These fractures allow the natural gas and oil to flow to the surface, where it can be collected and
processed.

11
 The process is depicted in the figure below:

Figure 3 : fracking chart [8]

✓ Gas separation:
The raw natural gas is first separated from any associated liquids, such as condensate and water, using
separators and other equipment. The gas is then sent to the gas processing plant for further treatment.
✓ Gas sweetening:
The natural gas extracted contains impurities such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2) that
must be removed before the gas can be transported and used. The process of removing these impurities is known
as gas sweetening (what will be focused on).
✓ Dehydration:
After sweetening, the gas is dehydrated to remove any remaining water vapor, which can cause problems
during transportation and processing. Dehydration is usually done using specialized adsorbent materials or glycol
dehydration units.
✓ Fractionation:
Once the gas has been sweetened and dehydrated, it may need to be further fractionated to remove any
heavier hydrocarbons or impurities. Fractionation involves cooling the gas to separate it into different components
based on their boiling points.
✓ Compression:
Finally, the purified gas is compressed and sent through pipelines to the national grid for distribution and
use.

12
 Part III
Simulation
with ASPEN
HYSYS v.10

13
 In the 3rd chapter, the sweetening of natural gas will be simulated with ASPEN HYSYS V.10 then a
comprehensive analysis of key factors will be developed:

III. Simulation with ASPEN HYSYS V.10:

III.1. Introduction to ASPEN HYSYS V.10:
Aspen HYSYS v.10 wields immense power as a process simulation software revered in the oil and gas
industry for its ability to model and optimize a plethora of processes. Its comprehensive toolset empowers
engineers and researchers to simulate and scrutinize complex systems, like natural gas sweetening
operations, with unparalleled precision and efficiency.
One of Aspen HYSYS v.10's standout attributes is its capacity to simulate and scrutinize the conduct of
different process units, such as absorbers, strippers, heat exchangers, and separators, within a
comprehensive process flow diagram. This allows engineers to visualize the entire gas sweetening process
and appraise the performance of individual units and the overall system.
Aspen HYSYS v.10 also offers advanced optimization capabilities, enabling users to unearth optimal
operating conditions and design parameters to enhance efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The software
provides potent tools for sensitivity analysis, parameter estimation, and optimization algorithms,
empowering users to explore various scenarios and make informed decisions to elevate process
performance.
Last but not least, Aspen HYSYS v.10 confers extensive reporting and data analysis capabilities, enabling
users to generate comprehensive reports, export data for further analysis, and visualize results through
customizable plots and graphs. This facilitates effective communication of simulation results and buttresses
decision-making processes.
III.2. Gas Sweetening Process description:
III. 2.1. Selection of alkanolamine

Alkanolamines, such as monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), methyldiethanolamine

(MDEA), and triethanolamine (TEA), are commonly used for sweetening natural gas. They contain
hydroxyl and amino groups, which enhance solubility in water and decrease vapor pressure. The hydroxyl
groups contribute to water solubility, while the amino groups provide the required alkalinity for reacting
with acid gases.
MEA is a primary alkanolamine with a primary alcohol and primary amine, while DEA is a secondary
amine with two primary alcohols. Tertiary alkanolamines like MDEA and TEA are also used. MEA has
drawbacks such as irreversible degradation with CO2, higher vaporization losses, ineffective mercaptan
removal, non-selective H2S removal, and higher utility costs. For selective H2S removal over CO2, tertiary
alkanolamines are preferred. However, TEA was found ineffective at low concentrations of H2S and CO2.
MDEA emerged as the best choice for selective H2S removal due to its lower vapor pressure, lower
solution flow rates, and the need for a smaller regeneration unit.
In a counter current reversible extraction process, sour natural gas enters at the bottom of the
column and flows upward, coming into contact with lean MDEA. The exothermic heat of the reaction
between MDEA and acid gases increases the temperature of the purified natural gas leaving from the top
of the column. The MDEA solution loaded with acid gas, known as rich MDEA, exits from the bottom of
the column.
The reactions during the process are as follows:

where, H2S is reacted instantaneously with MDEA to form methyldiethanolamine-sulphide salt.

14
 However, CO2 forms carbonic acid as intermediate with water given by Reactions (2) and (3).

Reactions (2) and (3) are slow to produce carbonic acid which reacts with MDEA to form
methyldiethanolamine bicarbonate

Reaction (4) predominates when both H2S and CO2 are present and proceeds to the right at low
temperature as forward reaction is exothermic.

III.2.2. MDEA concentration

the MDEA concentration is typically chosen based on the desired effectiveness of sour gas removal.
Increasing the MDEA concentration leads to a reduction in solution circulation rate. This is primarily
because more concentrated solutions have higher acid gas vapor pressure at equivalent acid
gas/alkanolamine mole ratios.
Furthermore, when attempting to extract acid gas from a smaller volume of solution, the heat of
reaction causes a greater temperature increase, resulting in an increase in acid gas vapor pressure over
the solution.

The chemical formula of methyl-diethanolamine (MDEA) is C5H13NO2. The physicochemical

characteristics of MDEA are [9]:
Molar Mass: 119.16 g/mol
Melting Point: 130-134 °C
Boiling Point: 277 °C
Solubility in Water: Miscible
Dissociation Constant (pKa): Approximately 9-10
Density: 1.030 g/cm³
Refractive Index: 1.467 (at 20 °C)

III.2.3. MDEA circulation rate

The optimal circulation rate of lean MDEA can be determined by conducting equilibrium loading calculations
based on the acid gas content of the feed, the concentration of MDEA used, and the acid gas loading. A specified
range of 0.4 to 0.55 mol [10] acid gas per mole of alkanolamine is typically considered for the acid gas loading in rich
MDEA.
In this study, a simulation will be performed to estimate the required MDEA circulation rate, considering
variations in the acid gas content and MDEA concentration. For this simulation, an intermediate value of 0.41 will
be assumed, and the flow rate of lean MDEA will be calculated accordingly.

III.2.4. Lean MDEA temperature

To prevent hydrocarbon impurities condensation in the contactor, the temperature of the MDEA entering
the extraction column should be 4 to 6 °C higher than the inlet feed NG temperature. The inlet feed NG typically
enters the extraction column at 51°C. The temperature for the lean MDEA is 57.05°C. It is important to ensure that

15
the temperature of the lean MDEA does not exceed the upper limit as it can negatively affect solvent performance
or result in increased solution losses due to vaporization.
III.3. Gas Sweetening Process simulation:
III.3.1. modelling instructions:
To run the simulation of the plant, we followed the steps below:
➢ Fluid package and components:
The flow sheet for NG sweetening using MDEA was developed in Aspen HYSYS version 10 using
‘acid gas package’. The composition of sour Natural Gas and process parameters were provided with a
coordination between NAWARA/GABES plant (report) and articles [10].
Table 2 shows the composition of sour NG stream as per design criteria.
Table 2: the composition of sour NG stream

component Molar fraction

Methan 0.8010
Ethan 0.1140
propan 0.0325
H2O 0.0497
H2S 0.0002
CO2 0.0026

1- Define the components.

Figure 4: component definition

16
2- Choose the appropriate fluid package.

Figure 5: choice of fluid package

3- Define the composition and the conditions of the sour gas feed.

Figure 6: Sour Gas feed parameters

17
4- Define the filter.

Figure 7: defining the inlet and outlet of the filter

5- Filling the flow sheet with unit models based on the Process Flow Diagram (PFD).

Figure 8: Process Flow Diagram of the filter

The raw acid gas composition and conditions:

18
6- Define parameters of the absorber.

Figure 9: absorber’s parameters

7- Filling the flow sheet with unit model based on the Process Flow Diagram (PFD).

Figure 10: Process Flow Diagram of the filter

8- Define the pressure drop of the expansion valve with rich amine as the inlet of the flash tank:

Figure 11: the expansion valve’s pressure drop

19
9- Define the flash tank

Figure 12: the flash tank’s outlet and inlet

10- Filling the flow sheet with unit model based on the Process Flow Diagram (PFD).

Figure 13: Process Flow Diagram of the flash Tank

20
11- Define the composition of the heat exchanger.

Figure 14: the heat exchanger’s parameters

21
12- Filling the flow sheet with unit model based on the Process Flow Diagram (PFD).

Figure 15: Process Flow Diagram of the heat exchanger

13- Define the parameters of the stripper:

Figure 16: the stripper’s parameters

22
14- Filling the flow sheet with unit model based on the Process Flow Diagram (PFD).

Figure 17: Process Flow Diagram of the heat exchanger

15- Define the parameters of the lean solvent booster pump and filling the PFD.

Figure 18: lean solvent booster pump parameters

16- Define the parameters of the mixer and filling the PFD.

Figure 19: Mixer parameters

23
17- Define the parameters of the air cooler and filling the PFD.

Figure 20: Air cooler parameters

18- Define the parameters of the lean solvent charge pump and filling the PFD.

Figure 21: lean solvent charge pump parameters

24
The composition and conditions of lean amine contractor after the recycle function

25
Sweet gas composition and conditions after recycle function

Acid gas composition and condition after recycle function

26
 19- Define the recycle function and filling the flow sheet with unit models based on the Process Flow
Diagram (PFD).

Figure 22: Developed Aspen HYSYS process flow-sheet for LPG sweetening.

27
 III.3.2. Analysis of Results
➢ Simulation environment
Sour Natural Gas as vapor feed at 51°C and 7154 KPa was fed to the bottom of the absorber
containing 25 stages having flow rate 24.43 m3/h. 41 wt% lean MDEA was fed at the top of the absorber
at 895.7 KPa and at elevated temperature of 6°c (57.05 °c) higher than sour NG.
The actual operating composition was recalculated using Aspen HYSYS when the sweetening
process was completed and the regenerated MDEA was recycled back to the Absorber.
Table 3 shows the simulation’s results.

Table 3: Simulation results

Parameters MDEA Sour NG Rich MDEA Sweet NG

Temperature °C 57.51 51 51.94 55.91
Pressure KPa 4021 7154 551.0 4021
Molar flow 687.6 432.9 705.2 416.9
Kmol/h
Volumetric flow 18.30 24.43 19.28 40.29
rate m3/h

➢ Effect of H2S loading

The effect of H2S loading was studied when the sweetening process was completed and the
regenerated MDEA was recycled back to the extraction. 41 % aqueous MDEA with H 2S loading was
simulated and the developed Aspen HYSYS flowsheet is shown in Fig. 23.
The treated NG left the top of the absorber at an elevated temperature of 55.91°C and 40.21 bars
(Sweet gas composition and conditions after recycle function) while the rich MDEA solution left the bottom at
51.94 °c and 5.51 bars (tube inlet 2). The rich MDEA was then heated to a temperature of 119 °C(stripper
feed) in lean/rich MDEA exchanger before being introduced into the regenerator column. Rich MDEA was
fed to the feed stripper of regenerator having a total number of 17 stages.
In the regenerator, stripping steam was used for the regeneration of rich MDEA. The stripping steam
was produced with the help of a reboiler which used low pressure steam (2.063 bars at 123.6°C) (shell
side inlet 3) for reclaiming the latent heat of vaporization. Regeneration process is endothermic and is
favoured by high temperature and low pressure.
The rich MDEA solution flowed downward through the stripper in counter current contact with
vapor generated in the reboiler which stripped the acid gas from the rich solution. Stripped acid gas left
the regenerator column at the top of the regenerator. Entrained water vapours and hydrocarbons were
separated from the acid gas through a full reflux condenser with reflux ration 33%.
Lean MDEA from the reboiler was pumped by lean amine solvent pump to lean/rich MDEA
exchanger where energy was recovered from the lean MDEA. The lean MDEA was then mixed with
makeup MDEA to account for MDEA losses (vaporization, chemical losses and mechanical losses). After
that, the solution was cooled down through a cooler (AC-100) to adjust the temperature to the
appropriate treating temperature in the absorber. The stream was then pumped back into the top of the
absorber to continue the sweetening of the sour NG.

28
The Composition and conditions of lean amine after the recycle function:

Sweet gas composition and conditions after recycle function:

29
 acid gas composition and conditions after recycle function:

IV. Comprehensive analysis of key factors

IV.1. Validation of simulation results
First step of this study was the development of NG sweetening process using Aspen HYSYS version
10 and comparing the required specification (Table 4). Finally, parametric sensitivity analysis was carried
out to validate the model. Process Parameters were changed accordingly associated with extraction and
regeneration to perform the case studies. The optimized simulation conditions were maintained in all the
studies while changing one parameter at a time.

Table 4:Comparison of simulation results of sweet gas and the required specifications[report]

Description Simulation results Required specifications

CO2 content (%mol) 0.0003 < 6.5
H2S c content (%mol) 0.0000 <5.0
Temperature °C 55.91* 30-50
Pressure KPa 4021 7500
Heat flow Kcal/Nm3 190234.9 11961-12640

*The Sales gas temperature is below 50 °C when the ambient temperature is below 40 °C and the Sales
gas temperature shall be above 50 °C when the ambient temperature is above 40 °C

30
 IV.2. Effect of feed raw Gas temperature:
A case study was made to predict the plant behaviour under different feed raw gas temperatures
keeping temperature difference between feed NG and lean MDEA constant (almost 6°C). Temperature
ranges from 20 °C to 100°C of feed Natural Gas would be able to determine the effect of H 2S content in
sweet NG and reboiler duty (Fig. 23) as it depicted in the figure below:

Effect of raw gas temperature on acid gases concentration in

sweet gas
1,40E+00 1534

1,20E+00 1532

1530
1,00E+00
H2S comp (ppm)

1528

Reboiler duty (kW)

8,00E-01
1526
6,00E-01
1524

4,00E-01
1522

2,00E-01 1520

0,00E+00 1518
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
raw gas temperature (c)
H2S comp (ppm) Reboiler duty (kW)

Figure 23: Effect of raw gas temperature on acid gases concentration in sweet gas

As the feed NG temperature increased from 20 to 100°C the H2S concentration in sweet gas
increases from 0.2ppm to 1.2ppm and reboiler duty decreases from 1532 KW to 1519 KW, the ability of
MDEA to extract acid gases were decreased which justify the exothermic reaction behaviour. At a reboiler
duty of 1530 Kw, the Feed NG temperature of 51 ℃ seemed to be good for extraction process

31
 IV.3. Effect of MDEA concentration
MDEA concentrations have a direct effect on the extraction of the acid gas in the extraction
column. The MDEA could be operated efficiently from 25 to 35 wt%. Fig. 24 illustrates the effect of
varying MDEA concentration on extraction of H2S and MDEA regeneration energy requirements. The
design MDEA concentration was considered to be 41.0 wt%. It was observed that as MDEA concentration
increased a steady decrease in reboiler duty took place while H2S concentration in the treated gas was
lowered at 41% (1.71*10-15 ppm to 1.49*10-15 ppm). At 35% of MDEA mass fraction seemed to be good
for the extraction.

effect of lean MDEA composition on acid gases

3,00E-15 concentration in sweet gas 2,00E+03
1,80E+03
2,50E-15 1,60E+03

Reboiler duty (kW)

H2S comp (ppm)

2,00E-15 1,40E+03
1,20E+03
1,50E-15 1,00E+03
8,00E+02
1,00E-15 6,00E+02
5,00E-16 4,00E+02
2,00E+02
0,00E+00 0,00E+00
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
lean amine comp (mass frac)
H2S comp (ppm) reboiler duty (kW)

Figure 24: the effect of MDEA concentration

IV.4. Effect of lean MDEA circulation rate

The lean MDEA circulation rate is another major parameter which is directly related to the
extraction of acid gas from Natural Gas. The lean MDEA circulation rate was changed from 10 to 100 m3/h
as shown in Fig. 25 below:

effect of lean MDEA circulation rate on acid gas

1,60E-02 concentration in sweet gas 9000
1,40E-02 8000
7000
Reboiler duty (kW)

1,20E-02
H2S comp (ppm)

6000
1,00E-02
5000
8,00E-03
4000
6,00E-03
3000
4,00E-03 2000
2,00E-03 1000
0,00E+00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Lean MDEA - std ideal liq vol flow (m3/h)

H2S comp (ppm) Reboiler duty (kW)

Figure 25: the effect of lean MDEA flow rate

As the MDEA circulation rate was increased the H2S concentration in sweet gas decreased due to lower
residence time. The minimum flow rate as per simulation was found to be 20 m3/h. Generally, little higher

32
flow rate is always recommended in the plant to accommodate any abnormality in H2S concentration in
feed gas. Again, increasing the circulation rate of lean MDEA causes an increase in reboiler duty
(from797,2697 to 7960,218 kW) of the regenerator.
IV.5. Effect of lean MDEA temperature
Temperature of lean MDEA could directly affect the extraction of acid gas. Design temperature of
lean MDEA for extraction was 57.05℃. As shown in Fig. 26, the lean MDEA temperature was varied to
study its effect on sweet gas composition and energy requirements in reboiler.
The H2S concentration in the treated gas gradually increased with the increase in lean MDEA
temperature. This is due to exothermic nature of extraction of H2S in MDEA in which the H2S
concentration in treated gas was low at lower lean MDEA temperature (i.e., MDEA extraction is favored
at low temperature) as mentioned earlier.
At higher temperature, solubility of H2S in aqueous MDEA is decreased, thus H2S concentration
gradually increases with the increase in lean MDEA temperature. As lean MDEA temperature increased,
the additional heat load on reboiler decreased. There was also slight decrease in reboiler duty.

Effect of lean MDEA temperature on acid gas concentration

in sweet gas
7,00E-02 1500

6,00E-02 1495

5,00E-02 1490

reboiler duty (kW)

H2S comp (ppm)

4,00E-02 1485

3,00E-02 1480

2,00E-02 1475

1,00E-02 1470

0,00E+00 1465
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Lean amine temperature (C)

H2S comp (ppm) reboiler duty (kW)

Figure 26: the effect of lean MDEA temperature

33
 IV.6. Effect of reflux ratio
Some of the distillate fed back to the regenerator is known as reflux. The design reflux ratio for this
process is 33%. Varying the reflux ratio in the regenerator affects the H 2S concentration in lean MDEA as
well as reboiler duty as shown in Fig. 27 below:

Figure 27: effect of reflux ratio

Since overhead temperature of the regenerator is an indication of the amount of stripping steam
being generated in the reboiler, the regenerator column was made to converge by specifying different
reflux ratios and setting the overhead temperature at 119°C (acid gas composition and conditions after
recycle function). Lowering the reflux ratio decreases the reboiler duty from 1497 kW to 1477 kW and
decreases H2S concentration from 26000 ppm to 5000 ppm in lean MDEA.

34
 IV.7. Effect of boiler ratio
The reboiler is used to boil the Rich MDEA to vaporize which results the reboiler(V) to return to the
regenerator and the lean MDEA(B) is returned back to the absorber. The reboiler ratio (V/B) is another
parameter which explains the H2S content in lean MDEA.
Fig. 28 shows the change in H2S concentration in lean MDEA and reboiler duty with change of
reboiler ratio.

Figure 28: effect of boiler ratio

The increase of reboiler ratio below the design results increasing of reboiler duty and increasing in
H2S concentration in lean MDEA which decreases H2S concentration in the treated natural gas. Higher
reboiler ratio yields better quality sweet natural gas at higher reboiler duty of 11000 kW.
 Finally, it can be concluded that the design specification should be maintained in such away
that H2S concentration in sweet gas is within permissible limit of 10 ppm. The parameters affecting the
extraction process such as lean MDEA temperature, sour feed gas temperature, regenerator operating
parameters, reboiler duty and MDEA circulation rate were determined.
The operating temperature of 57.51°C for lean MDEA was selected as per design specifications. To
maintain H2S concentration of 0.0 ppm in sweet gas; sour gas temperature of 51°C with flow rate 40.23
m3/h, reboiler duty 1530 kW, MDEA circulation rate 24.43 m3/h, MDEA concentration 35 wt%, reboiler
pressure 2.063 bars, reflux ratio 33 and reboiler ratio 0.195 were obtained. Thus, a steady state model
was successfully developed on HYSYS simulation for determining the sensitivity of parameters affecting
the H2S extraction process using MDEA.

35
 Conclusion
By simulating and optimising the natural gas sweetening process using Aspen HYSYS v.10, a number of key
lessons have been learnt. The modelling and analysis of the sweetening process allowed a better
understanding of the behaviour of the various components and their impact on the overall system
performance.

Optimising the factors in the natural gas sweetening process is crucial for several reasons.
Firstly, it helps to improve the overall efficiency of the process, resulting in reduced operating costs and
improved productivity. By identifying optimal operating conditions and design parameters, Aspen HYSYS
v.10 enables engineers to streamline the process and achieve higher gas quality standards. In addition,
optimisation efforts can help reduce environmental impact by minimising resource consumption and waste
generation. Optimisation also plays a vital role in ensuring the economic viability of natural gas sweetening
operations. By maximising the recovery of valuable components and minimising energy consumption, the
process becomes more financially sustainable, leading to improved profitability and competitiveness in the
marketplace.

While this report has focused on the optimisation of key factors in natural gas sweetening using Aspen
HYSYS v.10, there are several avenues for future study that could further enhance the understanding and
efficiency of the process. These recommendations include
In-depth sensitivity analysis: Conduct a comprehensive sensitivity analysis of various factors such as
temperature, pressure and flow rates to determine their individual and combined effects on the sweetening
process. This will provide a deeper understanding of system behaviour and enable more precise
optimisation.
Integrate advanced modelling techniques: Explore the integration of advanced modelling techniques,
such as dynamic simulation, to account for transient behaviour and optimise the process under varying
operating conditions. This will help to capture the dynamic nature of natural gas sweetening operations and
provide more accurate predictions.
Technological advances: Keep abreast of technological advances in gas sweetening processes, such as the
development of novel absorbents or membranes, and evaluate their potential integration into Aspen HYSYS
v.10. This will allow their impact on process performance to be assessed and will assist in decision making
for future plant designs.
Integration of economic analysis: Incorporate economic analysis into the optimisation process to
evaluate the financial feasibility of different operating conditions and design parameters. This will provide a
more comprehensive assessment of the trade-offs between efficiency, cost and profitability. By addressing
these recommendations, future studies can further refine the optimisation of natural gas sweetening
processes, leading to improved efficiency, reduced costs and improved environmental performance.
In conclusion, this report has demonstrated the significance of optimization in natural gas sweetening
processes using Aspen HYSYS v.10.

36
Bibliographic references and Netography :
[1] [online][consulted in 30th April] https://www.worldometers.info/gas/tunisia-natural-gas/
[2] [online][consulted in 30th April] https://www.aqlpa.com/enjeux-et-reflexions/gaz-et-petrole-de-schiste/page/0/1
[3] [online][consulted in 29th April] https://www.carbonbrief.org/whats-the-difference-between-natural-gas-liquid-
natural-gas-shale-gas-shale-oil-and-methane-an-oil-and-gas-glossary/
[4] [online][consulted in 30th April] https://www.indsci.com/fr/blog/comprendre-les-r%C3%A9glages-alarme-par-
d%C3%A9faut-des-d%C3%A9tecteurs-de-gaz ( toxicological sheet file:///C:/Users/asus/Downloads/FicheTox_32.pdf)
[5] [online][consulted in 30th April] https://www.indsci.com/fr/blog/comprendre-les-r%C3%A9glages-alarme-par-
d%C3%A9faut-des-d%C3%A9tecteurs-de-gaz(toxicological sheet file
file:///C:/Users/asus/Downloads/FicheTox_238.pdf °
[6] [online][consulted in 30th April] https://www.omv.tn/services/downloads/00/omv.tn/1522154598804/factsheet-
nawara-gas-development.pdf?fbclid=IwAR113Mnz-2aP0CHaoZ4D4G7DGXJUbP9pcaEX36hmln0VkRiAazbr50dZIVk
[7] [online] [consulted in 30th April] https://www.eib.org/attachments/registers/54267110.pdf
[8] [online] [consulted in 30th April] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fracking.asp
[9] [online] [consulted in 30th May] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-M%C3%A9thyldi%C3%A9thanolamine
[10] [online] [consulted in 30th May] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510015300743

37