Advancements in retrofits for
existing NGL recovery plants
Better plant performance is achieved using proven retrofit techniques to upgrade a
gas subcooled process or older plant with more recent retrofit technology
Michael Pierce, Scott Miller and John Wilkinson Honeywell UOP
Gerry Wooten Mustang Gas Products, LLC
Raj Patel Brazos Midstream
T
he processes gas plant owners/operators use to
recover hydrocarbon liquids from natural gas streams
have undergone continual improvements over many
decades. Gas plants today are required to maximise profits
by optimising both the recovery of natural gas liquids (NGL)
based on market prices and plant throughput to satisfy their
delivery contracts. Given recent market volatility, the ability
to vary plant operation has become increasingly important.
NGL recovery plants designed with built-in flexibility can
maximise plant throughput, even above nameplate capac-
ity, while maintaining maximum product recovery. This
gives them an economic advantage over standard designs.
Unfortunately, many standard cryogenic NGL recovery
plants were constructed using technologies with limited
product recovery capabilities and flexibility. These plants
are unable to effectively achieve maximum ethane and pro-
pane recovery or adjust operations without losing valuable
product, in particular propane, into the residue gas stream.
To stay competitive, owners/operators of older plants often
need to retrofit their plants.
Several new process technologies are available to effec-
tively upgrade standard plants. These recent advances can
provide higher ethane and propane recoveries, and many
offer fully flexible ethane recovery levels, ranging from
ultra-high recovery to almost full rejection while maintain-
ing high propane recovery. Other technologies include the
ability to process higher feed gas flow rates with minimal
modifications to existing equipment. Identifying the key
performance goals of a proposed retrofit is critical to ensur-
ing a successful revamp.
The ‘standard’ plant
For many years, the ‘standard’ NGL recovery plant included
a turboexpander, with the expanded feed gas providing
top reflux to a fractionation column. This became known
as a ‘simple expander plant’. The integration of the turbo-
expander was a significant improvement over the previous
standard, the ‘refrigerated J-T plant’, providing higher prod-
uct recovery with less compression power.
In the 1970s, The Ortloff Corporation improved on the
simple expander plant by generating an additional reflux
stream to feed the top of the fractionation column.1,2 The
www.digitalrefining.com
source of the reflux stream was either a portion of the
separator vapour or the separator liquids or a combination
of the two. The higher product recovery levels and lower
power requirements quickly made this the next ‘standard’
process technology, commonly known as the gas sub-
cooled process, or GSP (see Figure 1).
Compared to the simple expander plant, the key fea-
ture of GSP was the addition of a reflux stream created by
condensing and subcooling a portion of the feed gas. This
reflux stream captured more of the valuable ethane and
heavier hydrocarbons that were otherwise lost to the res-
idue gas stream from the top of the fractionation column.
Although the GSP technology required an additional heat
exchanger and an additional fractionation section at the
top of the column, the product recoveries were significantly
improved without requiring more compression power. This
allowed operators to recover ethane and heavier hydrocar-
bon components as the NGL product while also producing
a mostly methane residue gas stream. The process could
also be configured to reject the ethane into the residue
gas stream while recovering only the propane and heavier
components as a liquid product. The latter ‘ethane rejection
mode’ of operation was useful in locations without a destina-
tion for an ethane product or where market conditions made
ethane more valuable for its heating value in the residue gas.
Subcooler
Residue
gas
Residue gas
compressor
Inlet gas Expander
Demethaniser
Bottom product
Figure 1 Gas subcooled process (GSP)
Revamps 2023 3

New heat
exchanger
Absorber
Subcooler
Residue
gas
Pump
Residue gas
compressor
Inlet gas
Expander
Demethaniser
Bottom product
Figure 2 Standard RSV retrofit
The GSP technology was a great improvement and
remained the best available NGL recovery technology for
many years, but it was not without limitations. In particular,
the source of the top reflux stream was still essentially feed
gas, containing significant fractions of ethane and propane. In
ethane recovery mode, ethane recovery is limited to approx-
imately 90-94%, with a propane recovery level of around
99%. Recoveries beyond these levels are technically achiev-
able, but the required additional compression is not econom-
ically viable. In addition, market conditions in recent years
have, at times, made ethane more valuable in the residue
gas product for the reasons previously mentioned, forcing
operators to switch to ethane rejection mode. Unfortunately,
the ‘standard’ GSP process typically loses 5% to 15% of the
propane to the residue gas stream when configured for full
ethane rejection, i.e., less than 2% ethane recovery.
When an accurate representation
of the equipment performance
has been completed, simulations
of various retrofit alternatives can
be developed
Process retrofit feasibility
The limited performance of the ‘standard’ GSP technology
provides many opportunities for retrofitting an older facil-
ity with an enhanced, more efficient technology, especially
given the large number of GSP installations worldwide. The
goals for any retrofit will depend on the specifics of each
project. As previously mentioned, potential benefits include
higher product recoveries, improved operational flexibility,
and increased plant throughput. These enhanced retrofit
technologies can achieve greater than 99% ethane recovery
and 100% propane recovery in ethane recovery mode or
maintain greater than 99% propane recovery while rejecting
ethane, with equal or only slightly more compression power.
4 Revamps 2023
Today’s owners/operators are also frequently faced with
the challenge of processing additional gas supply while
minimising capital expenditures. A retrofit can provide a
relatively inexpensive alternative to building a new plant to
achieve higher production targets.
Once the goals of a retrofit are identified, a study is rec-
ommended to select the best process to achieve the stated
goals. This study should include a simulation of the original
process design and a simulation of the current plant that
may include updates to equipment or possible deficiencies
that may or may not be corrected with the retrofit.
When an accurate representation of the equipment per-
formance has been completed, simulations of various retro-
fit alternatives can be developed. These simulations should
consider all limitations of the current equipment, such as
exchanger performance, rotating equipment capabilities
(using available power and performance curves), and rat-
ing of separators and columns at the proposed retrofit
conditions.
Finally, additional external restrictions must be consid-
ered. These may include the available plot space and loca-
tion for new equipment, time allotted for a plant shutdown
to make tie-ins and install equipment, and available fund-
ing for the project. A detailed analysis will identify the best
technology for the plant retrofit.
Retrofit options
Retrofitting a cryogenic NGL recovery plant is not a new
concept. The procedures applied more than 40 years ago to
upgrade simple expander plants to GSP have not changed
and are just as applicable to upgrading a standard GSP unit
to an enhanced retrofit technology. Several papers have
previously covered different retrofit options and the pro-
cess of accomplishing retrofits.4,5 One example is upgrading
the GSP unit to the recycle split vapour (RSV) process. For
the purposes of this article, we will re-introduce a simple
GSP-to-RSV retrofit as a starting point and expand to more
recent retrofit technology options specifically developed to
upgrade a GSP plant.
Recycle split vapour retrofit
When increased product recovery is of key importance,
converting the standard GSP plant to the RSV process
can provide rapid returns with minimal downtime. Figure
2 shows a typical RSV retrofit applied to the gas subcooled
process. New equipment and piping are shown in red, with
tie-in points indicated by circles.
As a means of extending the existing demethaniser with-
out any welding or structural concerns, a new absorber
column (packed or trayed) is added to improve fractiona-
tion. Overhead vapour from the existing demethaniser is
routed to the bottom of the absorber. Absorber bottoms
pumps transport the bottom liquids to the top of the exist-
ing column.
The top reflux for the absorber is provided by a recycle
stream of lean residue gas that has been compressed.
This high-pressure gas is cooled, condensed, and sub-
cooled in a new heat exchanger. The high-pressure liquid
is then flashed to provide reflux for the top of the absorber,
www.digitalrefining.com
recovering valuable ethane and propane that exit the top of
the existing demethaniser.
The resulting RSV retrofit plant can recover as much as
99% of the ethane and 100% of the propane, or it can reject Subcooler
CRM
ethane, recovering less than 2% of the ethane while main- Residue
gas
taining greater than 99% propane recovery. To achieve these
recovery levels, the RSV process usually requires 10-15%
more compression power compared to the base GSP plant, Residue gas
compressor
which is limited to 90-94% ethane recovery. Therefore, a ret-
Expander
rofit will typically require either a separate recycle gas com- Inlet gas
Demethaniser
pressor or additional sales gas compression unless surplus
compression power was originally installed.

Retro-Flex retrofit
The proprietary UOP Retro-Flex technology6 was co-devel-
oped in partnership with SME Products, LP specifically to
increase the recoveries of propane and heavier components
from GSP plants. It is applicable to both ethane recovery
and ethane rejection modes of operation and does not
require additional compression. Retro-Flex is considered a
‘bolt-on’ retrofit, with all new equipment located on a skid
adjacent to the existing plant. This minimises the number of
tie-in points and downtime.
Figure 3 shows a Retro-Flex retrofit for a GSP system
operating in ethane rejection mode. The cold flashed
stream from the GSP subcooler, which normally feeds the
top of the column (shown dashed), is instead routed to the
cold refluxing module (CRM) for processing. The residue
gas stream that normally flows from the column overhead
directly to the subcooler (shown dashed) is instead routed
to the CRM and then subsequently routed to the subcooler.
The resulting condensed liquids are pumped to the top of
the existing column as top reflux.
For a standard GSP plant, the Retro-Flex installation
requires only four tie-in points, shown with circles in Figure
3. By installing appropriate isolation valves, the installation
downtime can be minimised, and the CRM module can be
easily bypassed if desired, allowing the plant to revert to
the original GSP section. Typically, no modifications to the
column or other existing equipment are required. The CRM
and pumps are mounted on a single module for easy instal-
lation, and all equipment is accessible for monitoring and
maintenance.
In ethane rejection mode, a Retro-Flex retrofitted GSP
plant provides a significant propane recovery improvement
compared to the original plant performance. Retro-Flex can
achieve greater than 99% propane recovery even when
rejecting almost all the ethane, whereas the GSP process is
typically limited to 85-94% propane recovery while reject-
ing ethane. In ethane recovery mode, Retro-Flex achieves
nearly 100% propane recovery, while GSP is typically lim-
ited to less than 99% propane recovery. It is important to
Bottom product
Figure 3 Retro-Flex retrofit
condensing it in the CRM. The additional cooling and rec-
tification of this stream allows Retro-Flex Plus to capture
more of the unrecovered ethane. In ethane rejection oper-
ation, the reflux compressor is shut down, and the retrofit
design reverts to the Retro-Flex technology.
A Retro-Flex retrofit offers a convenient upgrade option
for GSP plant operators who want to improve their propane
recovery levels, either in ethane recovery or rejection modes
of operation. Moreover, with only four tie-in points, it requires
minimal downtime and has small plot space requirements.
GSP2 retrofit
The standard RSV and Retro-Flex retrofits rely on existing
equipment for all the feed gas processing. When through-
put greater than nameplate capacity is desired, special con-
sideration must be given to processing the additional feed
gas without exceeding the existing equipment limitations.
One such technology is the proprietary UOP Ortloff
GSP2 process⁸ shown in Figure 4. With GSP2, the feed
gas is split into two streams, usually with the existing plant
New heat
exchanger
Subcooler Absorber
Residue
gas
Pump
Residue gas
compressor
Expander
Inlet gas
Demethaniser

note that the maximum Retro-Flex ethane recovery is gen-

erally limited to levels achievable by GSP, i.e., 90-94%.
If ultra-high ethane recovery (greater than 98%) is
desired, the Retro-Flex Plus technology⁷ should be consid-
Bottom product
ered for the retrofit. In this process, a small reflux compres-
sor is added to the standard Retro-Flex retrofit package to
compress a portion of the column overhead vapour before Figure 4 GSP2 retrofit

www.digitalrefining.com Revamps 2023 5

 5, combines the concepts of both the GSP2 and RSV ret-
New heat rofits previously described, requiring a new heat exchanger
exchanger
and an absorber column with pumps to ‘extend’ the exist-
ing column. The absorber bottoms pumps are required to
Subcooler transfer liquids from the bottom of the absorber to the top
Absorber
Residue of the existing demethaniser.
gas
As with GSP2, higher feed gas flow rates are possible
Pump because the feed gas is split into two streams. The first por-
Residue gas tion flows to the existing equipment at approximately the
compressor same design flow rate. The remainder of the feed gas flows
Inlet gas
Expander to a new heat exchanger, where it is cooled, condensed,
Demethaniser and subcooled with cold residue gas. It is then flashed to
the existing column through the original top reflux piping.
The original separator vapour reflux stream is separately
cooled and condensed in the new heat exchanger before
feeding the middle of the new absorber.
Bottom product As described in the RSV retrofit, a new reflux stream is
provided by recycling a portion of the compressed residue
Figure 5 RSV2 retrofit gas stream. This lean gas stream is cooled, completely con-
densed, and then subcooled in the new heat exchanger. It
continuing to process its design flow rate. The additional is then flashed to the absorber and fed as the top reflux
flow above nameplate capacity bypasses the existing inlet stream. RSV2 is capable of increasing plant throughput by
feed gas-cooling section and is cooled and condensed using as much as 20% above nameplate capacity by bypassing
cold residue gas in a new multi-pass heat exchanger. This additional flow around the existing equipment. At the same
new exchanger, which may either supplement or replace time, it achieves higher ethane and propane product recov-
the existing subcooler, provides a similar functionality to eries than the original GSP whether operating in ethane
the subcooler. The high-pressure, condensed feed gas recovery or ethane rejection mode.

Equipment considerations for retrofits

A Retro-Flex retrofit offers a
convenient upgrade option for
GSP plant operators who want to
improve their propane recovery
levels, either in ethane recovery or
rejection modes of operation
bypass stream is then fed to the original top reflux point in
the existing demethaniser.
A new absorber column is added to ‘extend’ the existing
fractionation column. Absorber bottoms pumps transfer
the liquids leaving the bottom of the absorber to the top of
the existing demethaniser, and the existing column over-
head vapour is routed to the bottom of the new absorber.
The top reflux for the absorber is provided by the original
separator vapour stream that is cooled and condensed in
the new heat exchanger. This provides the leanest possible
reflux for the GSP process, which is preferable to using the
richer feed gas to reflux the top of the absorber. GSP2 can
increase the plant throughput by as much as 20% above
nameplate capacity while maintaining or improving the
original GSP plant product recoveries.
RSV2 retrofit
When the retrofit objectives include both higher product
recoveries and additional throughput, the proprietary RSV2
process⁹ can be considered. This option, shown in Figure
Retrofitting any existing plant to improve performance and/
or throughput requires careful analysis. In addition to com-
pleting simulations of the existing process and proposed
configuration, the capabilities of the existing equipment
must be confirmed. The following shortlist identifies some
of the areas to review:
• Metallurgy: To improve product recovery in a cryogenic
NGL recovery plant, the selected retrofit process may
require colder operating temperatures compared to the
original design. All existing piping and equipment minimum
design temperatures must be checked to ensure safe oper-
ation under the new conditions
• Design pressures: The selected retrofit process may
allow the NGL recovery plant to achieve the desired prod-
uct recoveries while operating the low-pressure section of
the plant (including the demethaniser) at a higher pressure.
The proposed retrofit must be designed with a safe margin
from the pressure limitations of the existing equipment
• Pumps: Higher product recoveries and certainly
increased plant throughput will require greater pumping
capacity in the product pumps. Existing pumps may be
modified, or additional pumps may be installed to handle
the higher liquid flows
• Separators: With potentially higher vapour and liquid
flow rates, the capability of all separators must be con-
firmed at the new conditions
• Column capacity: The ability of the existing column must
be reviewed for the new conditions. Both the vapour and
liquid flow rates and fractionation properties of each stage
must be considered, and the column internals may require

6 Revamps 2023 www.digitalrefining.com

replacement with internals better suited for the retrofit
operating conditions
• Turboexpander: Retrofit operating conditions can be very
different from the design point for the expander and should
be reviewed by the turboexpander vendor. The expected
operating efficiencies must be confirmed and incorporated
into the retrofit simulation. In some cases, the expander
and/or compressor wheel may need to be replaced for more
efficient operation under the new conditions
• Heat exchangers: The existing heat exchangers must
be re-rated for the new conditions. This includes the heat
transfer capability and any change in pressure drops at the
new conditions
• Bottom reboiler: The bottom reboiler ultimately provides
the heat required to meet the liquid product specification.
Higher recovery levels will require more heat input, man-
dating a review of both the exchanger performance and the
heating medium system (steam, hot oil). In cases where the
original plant was not designed for ethane rejection but it is
now desired, a new bottom reboiler with an external heat
source will be required
• Residue gas compression: With any increase in plant
throughput, additional residue gas compression will likely
be required. The same is true when upgrading to a technol-
ogy that requires a residue recycle reflux stream. Potential
options include a new parallel compressor to handle the
higher flow rates, or simply a separate recycle gas com-
pressor if plant throughput is not increased
• Other units: In cases where increased throughput is
desired, the effect on other units must be considered. This
includes any inlet treating, such as amine units and dehy-
dration, as well as downstream fractionation. These units Figure 6 Absorber with CRM, left, and existing column, right
may require debottlenecking to handle the extra flows.
A careful review of existing equipment is as important as a Retro-Flex module to maintain the required propane
designing new equipment in any retrofit and is required to recoveries.
ensure a successful project. Since the original design only included the ability to
recover ethane, the retrofit had to include equipment to
Case study 1 accommodate ethane rejection operation. A new bottom
The Dover Hennesey Gas Plant, operated by Mustang Gas reboiler heat exchanger was added to provide this capabil-
Products, LLC, was commissioned in 1978. It was designed ity, using hot oil as the heat medium. In addition, problems
to process 47 MMSCFD using a simple expander plant pro- were identified in several of the existing equipment items,
cess, with the expander feeding the top of the demethaniser. requiring some modifications and replacements:
Although plant performance was low compared to process • The gas/gas exchanger was exhibiting very high-pressure
technologies available today, the plant provided reliable
operation for more than 40 years. Prior to the retrofit, the
Dover Hennessey retrofit results
original design recovered 72.0% of the ethane and 98.4%
of the propane. Pre-retrofit Retrofit performance
Performance Predicted Actual
Retrofit goals were identified as follows: Ethane recovery mode
• Increase processing capacity to 80 MMSCFD Ethane recovery, % 72.0 92.9 95.0
• Improve product recoveries, with desired ethane recov- Propane recovery, % 98.4 100.0 100.0
ery greater than 90%
Ethane rejection mode
• Add the ability to reject ethane, with less than 10%
Ethane recovery, % N/A <10.0 <5.0
ethane recovery level and maximum propane recovery. Propane recovery, % N/A >99.0 >99.0
Given the desired ethane recovery level, a simple GSP Plant capacity, MMSCFD 47 80 80
retrofit would have sufficed. However, the requirement Residue compression, hp 5,400 5,400 5,400
to maximise propane recovery while rejecting ethane C₃ refrigeration, hp 700 1,200 1,200
demanded a different process. The chosen option was to
upgrade this plant to GSP technology while also including Table 1

www.digitalrefining.com Revamps 2023 7


Figure 7 Absorber, left, and new heat exchanger seen
during installation
drops and poor thermal performance. It was replaced as
part of the retrofit
• The expander/compressor was refurbished and fitted
with new expander and compressor wheels to handle the
retrofit conditions
• The demethaniser internals were replaced to improve
packing efficiency and handle higher vapour and liquid flows.
New equipment for the GSP/Retro-Flex retrofit included
the following, along with associated piping and controls:
• Absorber column
• Absorber bottoms pumps
• Reflux condenser/subcooler
• Cold refluxing module (CRM)
• Demethaniser hot oil reboiler
• Air-cooled product cooler (for ethane rejection mode)
• Supplemental refrigeration compression.
For this project, the CRM was constructed on top of the
absorber, eliminating the need for additional pumps typi-
cally required for a Retro-Flex retrofit. The new absorber
(with the CRM attached on top) can be seen next to the
existing column in Figure 6.
The addition of the new equipment required five tie-in
points, which were completed during a planned plant
8 Revamps 2023
Comanche III gas plant retrofit results
Pre-retrofit Retrofit performance
Performance Predicted Actual
Ethane recovery mode
Ethane recovery, % 93.0 99.5 99.9
Propane recovery, % 98.5 100.0 100.0
Ethane rejection mode
Ethane recovery, % 45.0 57.1 55.0
Propane recovery, % 94.0 99.9 99.9
Table 2
shutdown. The upgraded plant was started up in late 2018.
Table 1 summarises the performance before the retrofit,
the predicted retrofit performance, and the actual perfor-
mance after the retrofit. The Dover Hennessey Gas Plant
retrofit resulted in significantly higher product recoveries,
more flexibility to either recover or reject ethane to adjust to
ethane market conditions, and decreased power usage per
MMSCFD of gas processed.
Case study 2
The Comanche III Gas Processing Plant, owned by Brazos
Midstream, was commissioned in January 2018. It was
designed as a standard skid-mounted plant using GSP with
a design capacity of 200 MMSCFD. At start-up, the recov-
ery levels were approximately 93% ethane and slightly less
than 99% propane.
Although this was a relatively new modular NGL recov-
ery plant, Brazos Midstream quickly developed a desire to
achieve higher propane recoveries, both in ethane recov-
ery and ethane rejection modes of operation. Based on the
market needs, the goals of the retrofit were identified as
follows:
• Improve product recoveries, particularly increasing the
propane recovery level to essentially 100% in ethane recov-
ery mode and greater than 99.5% while rejecting ethane at
a 55% recovery level. Ethane recovery of greater than 99%
was also desired
• Provide an option to increase plant throughput in the
future.
To provide the desired ultra-high ethane recovery and
essentially 100% propane recovery, a process like RSV
was clearly required. However, the RSV2 option was cho-
sen because of the potential to process additional gas. It
was also attractive because of the ability to connect the
new equipment with minimal downtime, requiring only six
tie-ins.
Given the young age of the original GSP plant and the
application of the RSV2 feed gas bypass, the retrofit did not
require any modifications to the existing equipment. New
equipment for the RSV2 retrofit included the following,
along with associated piping and controls:
• Absorber column
• Absorber bottoms pumps
• Recycle gas exchanger/reflux condenser.
Figure 7 shows the new equipment during construction.
The absorber appears on the left, while the new recycle gas
www.digitalrefining.com

exchanger/reflux condenser can be seen prior to connecting
the piping and adding insulation.
A typical RSV2 retrofit would require extra residue com-
pression for the additional recycle gas flow. However, the
Comanche III plant already had surplus residue compres-
sion that was available. It is also important to note that the
ethane recovery level at this facility must be maintained
above approximately 55% in ethane rejection mode due
to pipeline specifications requiring a minimum amount of
ethane in the NGL product.
The upgraded plant was started up in November 2021.
Table 2 summarises the performance before the retrofit,
the predicted retrofit performance, and the actual perfor-
mance after the retrofit.
The main objective of the Comanche III retrofit was
to improve propane recovery in all operating modes.
Application of the RSV2 process has always provided
essentially 100% propane recovery, maximising product
revenue. Although the ability of RSV2 to increase through-
put is available, the operator has not yet pursued that
option due to capacity limitations in other units.
Conclusions
Today’s constantly changing market conditions have left
many owners/operators seeking ways to provide additional
flexibility and improve margins with their existing assets.
Process retrofits can provide an attractive option with min-
imal downtime and expense. Although selecting the appro-
priate retrofit technology requires consideration of several
factors, enhanced technologies allow retrofits to improve
product recoveries, increase throughput, and provide addi-
tional operating flexibility.
Ortloff is a registered trademark. Retro-Flex, Retro-Flex Plus, GSP2,
RSV, and RSV2 are marks of Honeywell UOP.
References
1 Campbell R E, Wilkinson J D, US Patent No. 4,157,904.
2 Campbell R E, Wilkinson J D, US Patent No. 4,278,457.
3 Campbell R E, Wilkinson J D, Hudson H M, US Patent No. 5,568,737.
4 Lynch J T, Wilkinson J D, Hudson H M, Pitman R N, Process Retrofits
Maximize the Value of Existing NGL and LPG Recovery Plants,
presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the Gas Processors
Association, March 10, 2003, San Antonio, Texas.
5 Pierce M C, Cuellar K T, Lynch J T, Hudson H M, Peyton J A, Miller
S A, 5th Generation NGL/LPG Recovery Technologies for Retrofits,
presented at the 96th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors
Association, April 11, 2017, San Antonio, Texas.
www.digitalrefining.com
6 Hudson H M, Wilkinson J D, Lynch J T, Miller S A, Cuellar K T, Johnke
A F, Lewis W L, US Patent No. 9,637,428.
7 Miller S A, Wilkinson J D, Lynch J T, Hudson H M, Cuellar K T, Johnke
A F, Lewis W L, US Patent No. 10,551,119.
8 Anguiano J A, Wilkinson J D, Lynch J T, Hudson H M, US Patent
Pending, Appl. No. 14/828,093.
9 Anguiano J A, Wilkinson J D, Lynch J T, Hudson H M, US Patent
Pending, Appl. No. 16/815,829.
Michael Pierce is Senior Engineering Manager for Ortloff Cryogenic
Gas Processing Technologies at Honeywell UOP in Midland, Texas.
He has almost 30 years of design experience in cryogenic NGL recov-
ery projects and is co-author of more than 10 US patents in hydro-
carbon processing. He holds degrees in both chemical & petroleum
refining engineering and computer science from the Colorado School
of Mines.
Scott Miller is a Principal Engineer for Ortloff Cryogenic Gas Processing
Technologies at Honeywell UOP in Midland, Texas. He has more than
22 years of experience in oil and gas, of which 15 years are in the
design of cryogenic NGL recovery projects. He is co-author of more
than 10 US patents in hydrocarbon processing and holds a BS degree
in chemical engineering from Texas A&M University.
John Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow and General Manager for Ortloff
Cryogenic Gas Processing Technologies at Honeywell UOP in Midland,
Texas. He has more than 48 years of design experience in cryogenic
NGL recovery projects and is co-author of more than 80 US patents
in hydrocarbon processing. He holds both a BA degree in chemical
engineering/chemistry and a Master’s in chemical engineering from
Rice University.
Gerry Wooten is the Engineering and Projects Manager at Mustang
Gas Products. He holds a BS in mechanical engineering with Special
Distinction from the University of Oklahoma.
Rajnish (Raj) Patel is a Process Engineering Manager at Brazos
Midstream. He has more than 12 years of engineering design experi-
ence, of which six years are supporting the design of cryogenic NGL
recovery projects. He holds an MBA from the University of Texas
Dallas and BS degree in chemical engineering from Drexel University.
LINKS
More articles from: Honeywell UOP
More articles from the following categories:
LNG, NGL and GTL
Revamps and Turnarounds
Revamps 2023 9