Accepted Manuscript

Simulation analysis of stripping fractionation process of gas condensate treatment

and practical application

Lin Zhu, Huimin Liu, Zheng Zhang, Yuanyang Pu

PII: S1875-5100(16)30280-3
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.057
Reference: JNGSE 1472

To appear in: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

Received Date: 30 January 2016

Revised Date: 18 April 2016
Accepted Date: 21 April 2016

Please cite this article as: Zhu, L., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Pu, Y., Simulation analysis of stripping fractionation
process of gas condensate treatment and practical application, Journal of Natural Gas Science &
Engineering (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.057.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Simulation Analysis of Stripping Fractionation Process of Gas

Condensate Treatment and Practical Application
Lin Zhu﹡1, Huimin Liu1,2, Zheng Zhang1, Yuanyang Pu2

1 Key Laboratory of Gas Process Engineering, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Institute,

PT
Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, Sichuan Province, China

RI
2 China Petroleum Engineering Southwest Company, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China

Abstract: Stripping fractionation is posed an advancing and promising process for

SC
gas condensate stabilization and desulfurization. Most of H2S, light mercaptan and

U
part of organic sulfur are removed while the condensate is stabilized in same column,
AN
reducing the capital investment for conventional condensate treatment process. In

terms of this newly designed process, two approaches for raw liquid inlet to a
M

stabilizer were considered, i.e. split-flow and straight-through for comparison purpose
D

between them and their respective scope of application. The whole process was
TE

simulated by ASPEN HYSYS software. According to the simulation results in

conjunction with the running experience in a natural gas processing plant in Mary,
EP

Turkmenistan, the priority of this new process in the field of condensate treatment has
C

been demonstrated, meeting the requirement of Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP) and
AC

sulfur concentration restriction. Finally, the spilt-flow approach with the optimal split

ratio range from 10% to 30%, was inherently beneficial related to economic aspects in

large processing scale case. Also, the economical analysis of split-flow method was

involved in detail.
Key words: Gas condensate; Stabilization and desulfurization; Stripping fractionation

process; Split-flow; Straight-through

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Introduction
It is generally recognized gas condensate is a valuable liquid hydrocarbon

mixture, generated during transmission in raw gas gathering pipelines or directly from

gas well, utilized as a diluent to heavy crude oil or converted to different petroleum

PT
products such as gasoline, jet fuel, etc[1, 2]. Transforming the raw condensate to a

RI
commercially accepted form needs to decrease its water, salt and acid contents (i.e.

H2S, CO2, mercaptans, etc) to meet the required standards for storage and

SC
transportation[3-5]. This so-called condensate treatment process aims at stripping of

U
light hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, propane, etc.) and removal of acidic components
AN
from liquid hydrocarbon to make it possible for commercialization. Hydrocarbon

condensates recovered from natural gas, especially in natural gas processing plant and
M

remote offshore platforms, are simply stabilized for blending with crude oil streams
D

and then exported as crude oil rather than further processing[1, 6]. In this case, the
TE

condensate is usually considered as by-product. Particularly, it is still blank to order a

strict specification for the condensate product, but usually in accordance with the
EP

crude oil standards. To minimize the light hydrocarbon losses, such as methane,
C

ethane, propane and butane, from the storage tank, the condensate stabilization is,
AC

therefore, crucial[7, 8]. On the other hand, for industrial application, condensate

stabilization is extremely necessary ascribed to the prohibition of vapor phase in

storage tank under atmospheric condition [9]. Heavier components can be used for oil

refinery cracking processes which allow the production of light products such as

gasoline[10]. Nevertheless, the stabilized liquid has to meet the vapour pressure
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

specification as it is transferred into pipelines[8, 11], therefore the raw condensate

must be processed at certain pressure and temperature to convince that the light gas

cannot be released in the condensate which exporting to pipeline or tanker.

To sum, several benefits can be obtained by means of condensate treatment,

PT
including:

RI
1) To decrease the vapour pressure of the condensate and reduce evaporation loss,

making sure the condensate is stable for the downstream application from the aspect

SC
of safety perspective.

U
2) To sweeten the condensate introducing to the downstream process (if any) by
AN
removing the acid gases such as H2S and CO2 from the aspect of environmental

perspective.
M

3) To recover methane, ethane, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and gasoline

D

products for reaching the maximum utilization of condensate.

TE

4) To keep the condensate purity of certain components such as pentane, hexane

and other heavier hydrocarbons.

EP

The vapour pressure of condensate is measured by the Reid Vapour Pressure

C

(RVP) test, which can also be estimated without performing the actual test by
AC

mathematic method [7, 11]. In this work, RVP has been employed as a criterion for

off-spec conditions of the product - i.e., a maximum of 10 psia (68kPa) in summer

and 12 psia (82kPa) in winter[12]. In actual plant condition, off-spec condensate

product is sent to an off-specification storage tank for temporary storage and

reprocessing later.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.1 Conventional condensate stabilization process

Two industrial mature technologies, namely flash vaporization and fractionation

have been employed for condensate stabilization, of which the conventional flash

vaporization process is shown in Fig. 1. As shown in Fig. 1, the raw condensate from

PT
upstream enters the 1st flash drum to separate part of light hydrocarbon by means of

RI
decreasing operating pressure by pressure control valve. The liquid from the drum

subsequently is introduced to the filter to remove majority of solid impurities, then the

SC
liquid arrives the 1st heat exchanger to be preheated by exchanging heat with

U
stabilized condensate. Afterwards the liquid enters the three phase separator to
AN
separate part of light hydrocarbon, condensate and water. Later, the condensate is

reheated by stabilized condensate in the 2nd heat exchanger, following the condensate
M

goes into 2nd flash drum to separate the residual light hydrocarbon and decrease the
D

vapour pressure to obtain the on-spec product. Finally the stabilized condensate is
TE

sent to the storage or transport station. And the flash gas flows enter into the fuel gas

system.
EP

This process is similar to sequential separation, achieving the flashing of large

C

amount of lighter ends at the temperature and pressure of separation by utilizing the
AC

equilibrium principles between vapor and liquid phase[4]. It is gifted with simple

operation and lower investment, whereas sometimes it cannot make the condensate

meet the RVP requirement with large loss of light hydrocarbon. Therefore, flash

vaporization is alone used as backup or temporary method for condensate

stabilization.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Condensate stabilization by fractionation, compared with flash vaporization, is a

more comprehensive process which is capable of producing liquids with suitable

vapor pressure, meeting any kinds of specification with the proper operating

conditions in a single column process that requires external energy source[8, 13, 14].

PT
Fig 2 shows the typical fractionation process for conventional stabilization, which

RI
mainly includes six components, such as flash tank, filter, three phase separator, heat

exchangers, column and reboiler. The beginning part of fraction process is consistent

SC
with flash vaporization, and the outstanding difference accounts for a stabilizer is

U
used to decrease the vapour pressure of condensate and the vaporization process uses
AN
2nd flash drum to separate the light hydrocarbon. It is worth noting the benefits of this

process has been proved in industrial plants and generally accepted as the main
M

method to stabilize condensate.

D

Unfortunately, few attentions was focused on the removal of H2S and other sulfur
TE

components during stabilization in the aforementioned methods, however sulfur

contained in condensate potentially affects the downstream process as well as bring

EP

environmental problems. Consequently, efforts for studying the desulfurization

C

process within stabilization are meaningful and challenging.

AC

1.2 Conventional condensate desulfurization process

Besides the RVP restriction, sulfur concentration of condensate is deemed as

another restriction for treatment. It is generally accepted the sulfur content in this

regard condensate or oil should be minimized, due to the corrosion issue for the

downstream equipment or pipeline caused by the release of H2S and other sulfur
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

components during operation or transportation, reducing the product quality, such as

gasoline, diesel, avgas, as well as bring environmental issue[15]. Various sulfur

removal processes have been reported in the literature and are mature in oil refineries.

Firstly, "Doctor sweetening" and "Copper sweetening" processes were traditionally

PT
used decades ago to transform mercaptans into less harmful disulfides[16, 17]. Then

RI
the "Caustic wash" process is a more popular method for sulfur removal, utilizing the

chemical components, NaOH solution, absorbs most of H2S, light mercaptans and

SC
thiophenols[18]. Besides, the two well-known catalytic processes, i.e. "Merox" and

U
hydrodesulfuration (HDS), are widely used for removal of large quantities of sulfur
AN
compounds from liquid hydrocarbon. Recently, the oxidative desulfurization (ODS)

process springs out as a relatively new technology for deep desulfuration[19].

M

1.3 New condensate stabilization and desulfuration process

D

To meet the aim of simplifying the process and economizing the investment and
TE

operating expense (OPEX) associated with consideration of both RVP restriction and

sulfur tolerance, this newly designed process is consisted of a fractionation

EP

stabilization and gas stripping desulfurization process to remove most of H2S and part
C

of organic sulfur compositions, such as mercaptans, dim-Sulphide, thiophene,

AC

thioethers etc., in one column, which is shown in Fig. 3. Stripping gas is one of the

key points in this novel process and it normally from fuel gas system in the gas

processing plant with normal temperature and pressure around 0.4-0.5MPa.g.

Additionally, sulfur-free flash gas or sales gas can be used as fuel gas, and

its principal ingredient is methane.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2 Process description for condensate stabilization and

desulfurization

As shown in Fig. 3, the raw condensate enters the flash drum to separate primary

vapor gas from liquid at lower pressure. Similar to conventional stabilization process,

PT
the liquid from the drum flows to the filter for the purpose of removing solids

RI
impurities to some extent, subsequently the liquid arrives the 1st heat exchanger to be

preheated by exchanging heat with stabilized condensate. Commonly, the liquid

SC
sequently flows the three phase separator and the 2nd heat exchanger and sent into the

U
upside of stabilizer (straight-through inlet method), or part of condensate is heated in
AN
the 2nd stage heat exchanger before entering into the middle of stabilizer which is

operated at approximately 150-500kPa.g (split- flow inlet method). The stripping gas
M

enters into the lower part of stabilizer in sour condition. Most of the lighter
D

hydrocarbon, H2S, CO2 and light mercaptan in the condensate are fundamentally
TE

removed with the aid of the stabilizer. Stabilized condensate from the bottom of

column sequentially arrives the 2nd and 1st heat exchanger to preheat the raw
EP

condensate, prior to its storage or transportation. The flash gas flows enter into the
C

fuel gas system.

AC

In comparison to conventional fractionation process, several advantages can be

expected in this new process[6, 20]:

1) Stripping gas is employed to remove the sulfur components to realize that

stabilization and desulfurization can be integrated in one column.

2) Two different approaches for stabilizer inlet, i.e. straight - through and split –
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

flow are considered, facilitating the changeable operational condition.

3) The whole process is simplified and is considered to have potential benefits to

reduce capital investment.

3 Theoretical simulation analysis

PT
Process simulation software package are extensively used to estimate the process

RI
efficiency and enhance the performance of the system by optimizing operating

parameters [21-23]. In analyzing the performance of this process, ASPEN-HYSYS

SC
was employed to simulate the whole process, and the Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of

U
state was used as the basic method for modeling [24, 25]. The objective of this study
AN
was to make the first effort to investigate the optimal split flow ratio and the

applicability of the new process. Also the simulation results were matched the
M

practical running outcome to demonstrate the accuracy of simulation model.

D

3.1 Effect of split flow ratio

TE

The previously mentioned two methods, as split-flow and straight-through were

individually modeled and analyzed. Within this context, reboiler duty, condensate
EP

production, stripping gas flow, flash gas flow, H2S and organic sulfur concentration of
C

condensate and flash gas were considered as the main performance index as well as
AC

economically operational range. Two scenarios, sour condensate and sweetening

condensate, are considered to investigate the act of the stripping fractionation process.

The case of sour condensate is to illustrate the possibility that the new process is

able to remove majority of the sulfur compositions and stabilize the raw condensate,

simultaneously analyzing the key parameters of the two methods in this new process
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to find out their range of application respectively for operational flexibility. The

sulfur-free condensate without sulfur compositions is suitable to the fractionation

process. Hence the scenario two intends to explain the application of two inlet

methods for the conventional process.

PT
Scenario 1: sour condensate

RI
The raw condensate parameters are listed in Table 1. For meeting the requirement,

both RVP and H2S concentration should be taken into consideration, with less than

SC
70kPa and 100ppm, respectively.

U
The split flow ratio was calculated by the following equation:
AN
Flow A
Split flow ratio: SR = (1)
Flow A + Flow B
M
D

Where: Flow A and Flow B are depicted in Fig.3, kg/h.

TE

SR denotes the split flow ratio.

Notably, when SR =0, it refers to straight-through method, otherwise refers to

EP

split-flow method.
C

As shown in Fig.4, it can be realized the reboiler duty and condensate production
AC

are raised with the increase of SR.

Another variation ratio is employed to define the economically operational rage

of split flow, shown below.

Fn - F0
Variation ratio: VR = (2)
Dn - D0
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Where: Fn denotes the mass flow rate of stabilized condensate at certain SR, kg/h.

F0 denotes the mass flow rate of stabilized condensate at SR=0, kg/h.

Dn denotes reboiler duty at certain SR, kW/h.

D0 denotes reboiler duty at SR=0, kW/h.

PT
The value of the VR is listed in Table 2. The variation range in 10-30% split flow

RI
ratio is larger than other range, with the optimal value of 15%.

Fig.5 shows that the straight-through method can effectively minimize the

SC
stripping gas flow (2354Nm3/h). For split-flow method, the stripping gas flow

U
increases with split flow ratio, nevertheless the flow of the overhead flash gas varies
AN
as a parabola with increasing split flow ratio with the minimum value of 2252Nm3/h

at SR=50%. By contrast, the flow rate of stripping gas flow increases slowly and the
M

overhead flash gas flow rate decreases suddenly when the ratio is at 10-30%. It shows
D

that it is more economically feasible at the optimal SR of 10-30%, which is consistent

TE

with the value obtained in Table 2. In terms of both methods, H2S concentration is

dramatically reducing to 100ppm. The result of the organic sulfur removal is shown in
EP

Fig.6. For the straight-through method, the organic sulfur content of overhead flash
C

gas is highest. For split-flow method, with the increasing of SR, the organic sulfur
AC

concentration contained in condensate increases, correspondingly decreasing the

organic sulfur concentration in flash gas, meanwhile H2S concentration varies as a

parabola with the increasing of SR. The organic sulfur content of condensate is rising

when the SR is more than 15%. In general, the straight-through method and split-flow

method with an optimal split ratio range in 5-15% are recommended as the effective
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and efficient approach to removing the organic sulfur components of condensate.

Fig.7 presents the relationship between SR and temperature of overhead flash gas

and stabilized condensate. As depicted, both flash gas temperature and condensate

temperature decrease with SR. The raw condensate from the three phase separator is

split into two stream, one stream is directly sent to top of the column without being

PT
heated, while the other stream is delivered to the upper-middle part of the column (at

RI
the forth tray) after it is heated by stabilized condensate from the bottom. The

increasing of SR means that the cold stream is becoming larger while the hot stream is

SC
becoming smaller. Therefore the temperature of flash gas formed at the top of column

receives great impact by the increasing of SR. The flash gas temperature decreases

U
AN
from 91.89 to 47 with SR from 0 to 100% according to the simulation. The

flash gas temperature declines fast before SR is equal to 40%, and then gradually
M

decrease its declining rate. In addition, the temperature of the stabilized condensate is

slightly influenced by the increase of SR. The temperature at the bottom decreases
D

from 143.2 to 132.8 , and the temperature is 141.7 when the SR is 0%, which
TE

means the straight-flow method. The inlet ways of the column can mildly impact the
EP

temperature at the bottom, with a limited range. The cold raw condensate which

enters into the top of the column is regarded as the cold reflux. The temperature at the
C

bottom changes with the flowrate of reflux. By increasing the flowrate of reflux, the
AC

temperature of bottom decreases. Instead of reducing the flowrate of reflux, the

temperature of bottom increases.

Scenario 2: sulfur-free condensate

The characters of raw condensate are listed in Table 3. The condensate shall obey

the RVP restriction with a vapor pressure less than 70kPa.

Fig 8 presents the Variation of condensate production, reboiler duty and flash gas
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

flow at different split flow ratios. Fig. 9 shows Variation of temperature of condensate

and flash gas at different split flow ratios. As shown in Fig.8, for the straight-through

method, the both of condensate production rate and reboiler duty are lowest. For

split-flow method, with the increasing of SR, the condensate flow rate and duty of

PT
reboiler increases, correspondingly decreasing the overhead flash gas flow. As shown

RI
in Fig.9, temperatures of overhead flash gas and stabilized condensate decline with

the adding of SR. As shown in both figures, variations of reboiler duty, condensate

SC
production, flash flow and temperature of condensate and flash gas are consistent with

U
scenario 1.
AN
3.2 Effect of H2S concentration

Based on the value shown in Table 3, split-flow method with a SR of 15% and
M

straight-through method are simulated on condition that H2S concentration is varied

D

from 0 to 30vol%. The condensate product still meets the requirement of RVP and
TE

H2S concentration.

Fig.10 illustrates the reboiler duty as Variation of reboiler duty at different H2S
EP

contents. The reboiler duty varies as a parabola that the duty climbs with H2S
C

concentration when H2S concentration < 8vol%, then it declines after the peak value
AC

of 8 vol%. The difference of the reboiler duty between the two methods is not

outstanding when H2S concentration is less than 2.5 vol%, and in this case, split-flow

method is economically promising than straight-through method. The condensate

production rate drops linearly with increase of H2S concentration, as shown in Fig.11.

Fig.12 and Fig.13 separately depict the variation of overhead flash gas and stripping
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

gas flow at different H2S contents. As shown in Fig. 12 and Fig.13, the flash gas flow

and stripping gas flow increase with H2S concentration. But stripping gas flow keeps

constant when H2S concentration is more than 13vol%. When H2S concentration is

less than 5vol%, the difference of flash gas flows between both methods can be

PT
neglected.

RI
3.3 Comparison between simulation and practical operation

Lolotan gas field gas processing plant was founded and commissioned in 2014. It

SC
consists of six identical sour gas treating units with maximum total capacity of 11.5

U
BCM (billion cubic meters) per year, and six sulfur recovery units and two condensate
AN
stabilization units with a maximum total sulfur production of 2065 tons per day and

252 tons per day, respectively. The gas processing plant employed stripping
M

fractionation process for the purpose of treating raw condensate, which contains H2S
D

and few mercaptans and its characters are shown in Table 4. It doesn't require the
TE

organic sulfur content of condensate. The comparisons between simulation results and

practical operating data in aspects of reboiler duty, stabilized condensate, flash gas
EP

and stripping gas flow and H2S concentration of condensate and flash gas, are shown
C

in Fig14 to Fig.17, respectively.

AC

Fig.14-17 present that the stripping fractionation process has a good performance

for stabilization and desulfurization of gas condensate. Though little difference is

observed between the simulation results and practical data in terms of H2S

concentration and RVP value of stabilized condensate, other outcomes are almost

close to the real ones, which demonstrates the reliability of the simulation.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4 Economic assessment

The preliminary economic evaluation of split-flow process is presented in the

following section. First, the size calculations of vessels are performed in Table 5; and

then the process equipment costs and other capital investments are listed in Table 6

PT
and Table 7 while the OPEX is listed in Table8; finally, an economic analysis is

RI
presented.

Tables 5 and Table 6 show the size and cost of equipment of the condensate

SC
treatment unit based on the designed parameters introduced in the previous section,

U
separately. Because the Cl- concentration of raw condensate is about 12×104mg/L,
AN
carbon incoloy 821 clad plate is selected as material for flash drum, filters, three

phase separator, stabilizer and tubes of 1st heat exchanger and 2nd heat exchanger.
M

Electricity is originated from the captive power plant, and water is coming from water
D

station while the stripping gas and heat medium steam are derived from gas
TE

processing plant. The price of electricity, water, stripping gas and steam are computed

based on actual operation and the price of the product stabilized condensate refers to
EP

international crude oil price in 2014 and 2015. As it can be expected, around overall
C

$ 10.3 million dollars capital investment is required for the condensate treatment unit.
AC

Notably, this calculation is regarded as the preliminary design of this process and

further financial balance should be expected in detail in the future work.

5 Conclusion

For the purpose of integrating condensate stabilization and desulfurization, this

work presented the efficient and effective stripping fractionation method by

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

stabilizing condensate and removing most of H2S, light mercaptan and some of

organic sulfur. In this work, two kinds of feeding approaches, namely split-flow and

straight-through, were considered. Additionally, two scenarios, sour and sweet raw

condensate, were analyzed in this work using variant split flow ratios and H2S

PT
concentrations. Comparison between simulation results and practical operating data

RI
were also concluded as well as the economic analysis.

In general, the conclusion can be drawn out and summarized below:

SC
1) The new process has good performance in respect of reducing the loss of

U
vaporization, facilitating energy conservation, ensuring environmental protection and
AN
operating safety, and increasing economic benefit, etc.

2) Most of light mercaptans are removed using this new process, but some
M

organic sulfur such as dim-Sulphide, thiophene, heavy mercaptans, heavy thioethers

D

and other heavy sulfur containing compounds still have challenges to fully remove.
TE

3) The straight-through method has lower energy consumption and smaller

condensate production rate. Nonetheless, split-flow method can get more condensate
EP

production and reducing flash gas flow by increasing little energy within 10-30% split
C

flow ratio (SR). For large scale condensate treatment units, split-flow method is
AC

therefore recommended as the more efficient and economically beneficial method for

condensate treatment.

4) Around 10.3 million dollars are required for the total condensate treatment unit

on the basis of the preliminary financial analyses.

References
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[1] M. Scott, J. Stake, Growing condensates require optimized designs for gathering, processing, Am.
Oil Gas Rep., 83 (2013) 34-41.
[2] M. Campbell John, Gas conditioning and processing, Septima edición. USA, (1998).
[3] B. Karimkhani, Z. Khorrami, Evaluating Effect of Different Operational Parameters on Increasing
Performance of Condensate Stabilizing Process in Gas Plants (Case Study), in: Kuwait International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2009.
[4] H. Adib, A. Sabet, A. Naderifar, M. Adib, M. Ebrahimzadeh, Evolving a prediction model based on
machine learning approach for hydrogen sulfide removal from sour condensate of south pars natural

PT
gas processing plant, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27 (2015) 74-81.
[5] N.M. Kazerooni, H. Adib, A. Sabet, M.A. Adhami, M. Adib, Toward an intelligent approach for H 2
S content and vapor pressure of sour condensate of south pars natural gas processing plant, Journal of

RI
Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 28 (2016) 365-371.
[6] C.R. Clarkson, J. Williams-Kovacs, F. Qanbari, H. Behmanesh, M.H. Sureshjani, History-matching

SC
and forecasting tight/shale gas condensate wells using combined analytical, semi-analytical, and
empirical methods, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (2015).
[7] J. Benoy, R. Kale, “Condensate Stabilization” in Offshore World, (2010).
[8] S. Mokhatab, W.A. Poe, Handbook of natural gas transmission and processing, Gulf Professional

U
Publishing, 2012.
AN
[9] S.S. Nanaji, K.L. Pope, R.R. Sobota, Reducing vaporous fuel emissions from liquid fuel storage
tank by using membrane permitting permeation of fuel vapor, in, Google Patents, 1995.
[10] J.H. Gary, G.E. Handwerk, M.J. Kaiser, Petroleum refining: technology and economics, CRC
press, 2007.
M

[11] J. Vazquez-Esparragoza, G.A. IGLESIAS-SILVA, M.W. HLAVINKA, J.A. BULLIN, How to

Estimate Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of Blends, Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc., website,
D

Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design, 47 (1992) 415-454.

[12] M. Tran, D.K. Varvarezos, M. Nasir, The importance of first-principles, model-based steady-state
TE

gain calculations in model predictive control—a refinery case study, Control engineering practice, 13
(2005) 1369-1382.
[13] E. Moaseri, O. Mostaghisi, A. Shahsavand, B. Bazubandi, M. Karimi, J. Ahmadi, Experimental
EP

study and techno-economical evaluation of Khangiran sour natural gas condensate desulfurization
process, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 12 (2013) 34-42.
[14] M. Bernhardsen, Improved Pretreatment in LNG Plants, (2012).
C

[15] C. Chou, Hydrogen sulfide: human health aspects, (2003).

[16] J.H. Krause, T.B. Tom, Color formation in copper chloride–sweetened distillates, Industrial &
AC

Engineering Chemistry, 44 (1952) 1603-1606.

[17] L. LaCroix, M. Kalinowski, One Test Evaluates Motor Oil Contribution to Combustion Deposits,
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1959.
[18] A. Manieh, N. Ghorayeb, How to design a caustic wash, HYDROCARBON PROCESSING, 60
(1981) 143-144.
[19] J.M. Campos Martin, M. Capel Sanchez, P. Perez Presas, J. Fierro, Oxidative processes of
desulfurization of liquid fuels, Journal of chemical technology and biotechnology, 85 (2010) 879-890.
[20] D. Galatro, F. Marín-Cordero, Considerations for the dew point calculation in rich natural gas,
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 18 (2014) 112-119.
[21] J. Bao, B. Gao, X. Wu, M. Yoshimoto, K. Nakao, Simulation of industrial catalytic-distillation
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
process for production of methyl tert-butyl ether by developing user’s model on Aspen plus platform,
Chemical Engineering Journal, 90 (2002) 253-266.
[22] F. Ameli, B. Dabir, Application of a smart mesh generation technique in gas condensate reservoirs:
Auto-tune PVT package for property estimation, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 24
(2015) 1-17.
[23] N. Rahmanian, I.B. Ilias, K. Nasrifar, Process simulation and assessment of a back-up condensate
stabilization unit, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 26 (2015) 730-736.
[24] C. Li, Y. Peng, J. Dong, L. Chen, Prediction of the dew point pressure for gas condensate using a

PT
modified Peng–Robinson equation of state and a four-coefficient molar distribution function, Journal of
Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27 (2015) 967-978.
[25] Y.I. Kalugin, V. Yakovlev, A.Y. Kalugin, Mathematical modeling and optimization of

RI
gas-condensate field development, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27 (2015)
1195-1204.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figures
Fig.1. Flash vaporization process flow diagram
Fig.2. Fractionation process flow diagram
Fig.3. Stripping fractionation process flow diagram
Fig.4. Variation of reboiler duty and production condensate at different split flow rations
Fig.5. Variation of stripping gas and overhead flash gas at different split flow rations
Fig.6. Variation of H2S and organic sulfur concentration of condensate and flash gas at different

PT
split flow rations
Fig.7. Variation of temperature of condensate and flash gas at different split flow rations

RI
Fig.8. Variation of condensate production, reboiler duty and flash gas flow at different split flow
rations
Fig.9. Variation of temperature of condensate and flash gas at different split flow rations

SC
Fig.10. Variation of reboiler duty at different H2S contents
Fig.11. Variation of condensate production at different H2S contents

U
Fig.12. Variation of overhead flash gas flow at different H2S contents
Fig.13. Variation of stripping gas flow at different H2S contents
AN
Fig.14. Comparison of reboiler duty and RVP of stabilized condensate
Fig.15. Comparison of temperature of reboiler and stabilized condensate production
Fig.16. Comparison of flow between overhead flash gas and stripping gas
M

Fig.17. Comparison of H2S between stabilized condensate and overhead flash gas
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sour Flash Gas Sour Flash Gas

Three phase separator

Raw Condensate 1 stage Flash Drum 2 stage Flash Drum

2 stage Heat Exchanger

Heater

PT
Filter 1 stage Heat Exchanger Heat Medium In

Stabilized Condensate Heat Medium Out

Transfer Pump

Stabilized Condensate

RI
1st Stage Flash Drum: Operation pressure: 1.5-1.8MPa.g; Operation temperature: 5-20 ;
Three phase separator: Operation pressure: 0.8-1.0MPa.g; Operation temperature: 45-55 ;

SC
2nd Stage Flash Drum3- Operation pressure: 0.05-0.1MPa.g; Operation temperature: 75-85 .
Fig.1. Flash vaporization process flow diagram

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Low Pressure Sour Flash Gas

Sour Flash Gas

Three phase separator

Raw Condensate Flash Drum Stabilizer

PT
Reboiler Heat Medium In

RI
Filter 1 stage Heat Exchanger 2 stage Heat Exchanger Heat Medium Out
Stabilized Condensate

Transfer Pump
Sour Water

SC
Flash Drum: Operation pressure: 1.5-1.8MPa.g; Operation temperature: 5-20 ;
Three phase separator: Operation pressure: 0.8-1.0MPa.g; Operation temperature: 45-55 ;
Stabilizer: Operation pressure: 0.1-0.6MPa.g; Operation temperature: 85-140 (bottom of stabilizer)

U
50-110 (top of stabilizer).
AN
Fig.2. Fractionation process flow diagram
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Low Pressure Sour Flash Gas

Flow A

Sour Flash Gas

Flow B

Three phase separator

Raw Condensate Flash Drum Stabilizer

PT
Reboiler Heat Medium In
Heat Medium Out

RI
Filter 1 stage Heat Exchanger 2 stage Heat Exchanger Stripping Gas
Stabilized Condensate

Transfer Pump
Sour Water

SC
Flash Drum: Operation pressure: 1.5-1.8MPa.g; Operation temperature: 5-20 ;
Three phase separator: Operation pressure: 0.8-1.0MPa.g; Operation temperature: 45-55 ;
Stabilizer: Operation pressure: 0.1-0.6MPa.g; Operation temperature: 85-160 (bottom of stabilizer) 47-60

U
(top of stabilizer).
Fig.3. Stripping fractionation process flow diagram
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stabilized Condensate Production (kg/h)

48000 3000
Stabilized Condensate Production
Reboiler Duty
47500 2700

Reboiler Duty (kW)

47000 2400

46500
2100

46000
1800

PT
45500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.4. Variation of reboiler duty and production condensate at different split flow ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Overhead Flash Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

Overhead Flash Gas Flow 1200
2550 Stripping Gas Flow

Stripping Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

2500
1000
2450

2400 800
2350

2300 600

PT
2250
400
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.5. Variation of stripping gas and overhead flash gas at different split flow ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.08 11.5

H2S content of flash gas , v%

organic sulfur content, v%
0.07
11.0

0.06
10.5
0.05

organic sulfur content of condensate (v)% 10.0

0.04

PT
organic sulfur content of lflash gas
H2S content of flash gas
0.03 9.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.6. Variation of H2S and organic sulfur concentration of condensate and flash gas at different
split flow ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

)
Temperature of Stabilized Condensate (
100
144
Temperature of Flash Gas

Temperature of Flash Gas ( )

90 Temperature of Stabilized Condensate
142
80 140

70 138

60 136

134
50

PT
132
40
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.7. Variation of temperature of condensate and flash gas at different split flow ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

stabilized condensate production (kg/h)

49200 2500

Reboiler duty & overhead flash gas flow

49000
2000
48800
1500
48600
Stabilized Condensate Production (kg/h)
48400 Reboiler Duty (kW)
Overhead Flash Gas Flow (Nm3/h)
1000

PT
48200
500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.8. Variation of condensate production, reboiler duty and flash gas flow at different split flow
ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

)
90 124

Temperature of Stabilized Condensate (

Temperature of Flash Gas ( )
Temperature of Flash Gas
80 Temperature of Stabilized Condensate 122

70 120

60 118

50 116

PT
40 114
0 20 40 60 80 100
Split Ratio (%)

RI
Fig.9. Variation of temperature of condensate and flash gas at different split flow ratios

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2000
Straight-Through
Split-Flow

Rebolier Duty (kW)

1800

1600

1400

PT
1200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

RI
H2S content (v%)

Fig.10. Variation of reboiler duty at different H2S contents

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stabilized Condensate Production (kg/h)

50000
Straight-Through
Split-Flow

45000

40000

PT
35000

30000

RI
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
H2S content (v%)

SC
Fig.11. Variation of condensate production at different H2S contents

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Overhead Flash Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

6000 Straight-Through
Split-Flow
5000

4000

3000

2000

PT
1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
H2S content (v%)

RI
Fig.12. Variation of overhead flash gas flow at different H2S contents

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
CEP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1200

Stripping Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

1000

800

600
Straight-Through
400 Split-Flow

200

PT
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

RI
H2S content (%)

Fig.13. Variation of stripping gas flow at different H2S contents

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Temperature of Reboiler
Stabilized Condensate Production

10092 128 10037 10067 10072 10051

125 10045 123 10000
121 119
120 118

Stabilized Condensate Production(kg/h)

8000
)
100
Temperature of Reboiler (

80
6000

PT
60
4000
40

RI
2000
20

0 0

SC
Simulation Operation-1 Operation-2 Operation-3 Operation-4 Operation-5

Fig.14. Comparison of reboiler duty and RVP of stabilized condensate

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Temperature of Reboiler
Stabilized Condensate Production

10092 128 10037 10067 10072 10051

125 10045 123 10000
121 119
120 118

Stabilized Condensate Production(kg/h)

8000

)
100

Temperature of Reboiler ( 80
6000

60

PT
4000
40

2000
20

RI
0 0
Simulation Operation-1 Operation-2 Operation-3 Operation-4 Operation-5

SC
Note: The reboiler duty is calculated according to heat medium (steam) flow, temperature and phase.

Fig.15. Comparison of temperature of reboiler and stabilized condensate production

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Overhead Flash Gas Flow

Stripping Gas Flow

513 252 507 247 500 245 250

237 481 239 473 237
455

Overhead Flash Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

400 200

Stripping Gas Flow (Nm3/h)

150

PT
200 100

RI
50

0 0

SC
Simulation Operation-1 Operation-2 Operation-3 Operation-4 Operation-5

Fig.16. Comparison of flow between overhead flash gas and stripping gas

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

H2S Concentration of Stabilized Condensate

H2S Concentration of Overhead Flash
120000
49 112400 113100

H2S Concentration of Stabilized Condensate (ppm)

111700 48

H2S Concentration of Overhead Flash Gas(ppm)

105200 105900 106400
45
43
41 100000
40 38

80000

PT
60000

20
40000

RI
20000

0 0

SC
Simulation Operation-1 Operation-2 Operation-3 Operation-4 Operation-5

Fig.17. Comparison of H2S between stabilized condensate and overhead flash gas

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tables
Table 1 Raw condensate (inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition
Table 2 The variation at each split flow ratio
Table 3 Raw condensate (inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition
Table 4 Raw condensate (inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition
Table 5 Process equipment size
Table 6 Process equipment (fixed) costs

PT
Table 7 Capital investments
Table 8 Operating costs and product profit

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Sour raw condensate (inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition

Property Value Property Value

Normal Flow, kg/h 5000 nC16 1.3758
Pressure, kPa 500 nC17 1.1426
Temperature, 50 nC18 0.8415
Composition, v% C19 0.7199
C1 3.1173 C20 0.5467

PT
C2 2.3351 CO2 0.0978
C3 2.1645 N2 0.0068
iC4 1.2528 H 2O 0.0198

RI
nC4 2.5141 H 2S 2.5027
iC5 2.2572 t-B-Mercaptan 0.0056
nC5 2.0422 M-Mercaptan 0.0056

SC
nC6 6.7942 E-Mercaptan 0.0056
nC7 16.6722 nBMercaptan 0.0068
nC8 19.9805 nPMercaptan 0.0074

U
nC9 10.6189 1-Hexanol 0.0082
nC10 6.8560 1PMercaptan 0.0098
AN
nC11 4.6480 COS 0.0013
nC12 3.7494 CS2 0.0074
nC13 2.9254 1Hexanethiol 0.0083
M

nC14 2.6041
nC15 2.1483
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 The variation at each split flow ratio

Split flow ratio Variation ratio Split flow ratio Variation ratio

Straight-through 0% / 40% 7.60

5% 2.14 50% 5.72

10% 9.28 60% 4.45

15% 12.29 70% 3.46

PT
20% 11.86 80% 2.72

25% 10.52 90% 2.16

RI
30% 10.67 100% 1.73

35% 8.87

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Sulfur-free raw condensate (Inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition

Property Value Property Value

Normal Flow, kg/h 5000 nC10 6.8560
Pressure, kPa 500 nC11 4.6080
Temperature, 50 nC12 3.7481
Composition, v% nC13 2.9254
C1 3.1173 nC14 2.6041

PT
C2 2.9351 nC15 2.1483
C3 2.1645 nC16 1.3758
iC4 1.2528 nC17 1.1426

RI
nC4 2.5141 nC18 0.8415
iC5 2.2672 C19 0.7199
nC5 2.0422 C20 0.5467

SC
nC6 6.7942 CO2 0.0978
nC7 18.6722 N2 0.0068
nC8 19.9805 H 2O 0.0068

U
nC9 10.6189 H 2S 0
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Lolotan GPP Raw condensate (inlet of stabilizer) conditions and composition

Property Value Property Value

Normal Flow, kg/h 10500 nC12 6.0954
Pressure, kPa 500 nC13 6.5649
Temperature, 50 nC14 7.5936
Composition, v% nC15 7.9180
C1 3.3959 nC16 8.1067

PT
C2 0.6501 nC17 8.3776
C3 0.3200 nC18 7.9854
iC4 0.3170 C19 4.8535

RI
nC4 0.2376 C20 8.6328
iC5 1.7651 CO2 1.0867
nC5 1.4376 N2 0.0016

SC
nC6 4.3151 H 2O 0.0045
nC7 3.6754 H 2S 2.3725
nC8 2.1765 M-Mercaptan 0.0021

U
nC9 2.3719 E-Mercaptan 0.0014
nC10 4.8210 nBMercaptan 0.0009
AN
nC11 4.9189 nPMercaptan 0.0003
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 5 Process equipment size
Diameter High Volume
Name
(m) (m) (m3)
Flash Drum (horizontal type) 2.0 8.0 25.12
Filter (vertical type) 0.6 1.6 0.45
Three Phase Separator (horizontal type) 2.0 9.4 29.52
Stabilizer (horizontal thermosyphon type) 1.4/0.8 4/12.55 6.15/6.31

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6 Process equipment (fixed) costs
Unit price $ Total Price $
Type Equipments No.
(2013) (2013)
Vessel Flash Drum 1 833,538 833,538
Filter Skid (2 filters) 1 91,105 91,105
Three Phase Separator 1 865,548 865,548
Stabilizer 1 174,461 174,461
Heat 1 stage Heat Exchanger 1 110,451 110,451

PT
Exchanger 2 stage Heat Exchanger 1 94,286 94,286
Reboiler 1 111,452 111,452
Pump Transfer Pump 2 92,529 185,508

RI
Sum 2466,349

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 7 Capital investments
Items Cost $ (2013)
Process Equipments and installation 2669,556
Valves, Piping and installation 3890,615
Instrumentation and installation 2784,148
Electricity and installation 391,476
Civil 575,215
Total cost 10,311,010

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 8 Operating costs and product profit
Items Quantity Unit price Total cost/profit
($ per annum 350 days)
Water (treated) 100(m3/per annum) 0.8($/m3) 80
Electricity 288(kW-hr/day) 0.12($/kW-hr) 12,096
3 3
Stripping gas(from 11520(Nm /day) 0.12($/m ) 483,840
fuel gas system of
GPP)

PT
Steam (0.6MPa, 9.6 (t/day) 21($/t) 70,560
from boiler of GPP)
Manpower Unification consideration of - -

RI
the gas processing plant
Depreciation 10% (Based on ten years) - 1031,101

SC
Maintenance 2% of capital cost - 206,220
Sum 1803,897
Stabilized 2001(barrel/day) 108.57($/barrel) 76,036,999

U
condensate Brent Crude Price
(March, 2014)
AN
30($/barrel) 21,010,500
Brent Crude Price
(January, 2015)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:

The paper studies a new process for condensate stabilization and desulfurization.

The stripping fractionation process has good performance in respect of reducing

PT
vaporization and desulfurization.

RI

Two approaches for raw liquid inlet to a stabilizer are considered, split-flow and

straight-through.

SC

The split-flow method is more efficient and economical for the large scale

U
condensate treatment unit.
AN

Practical data confirms the simulation by HYSYS is reliable in the field of

condensate treatment.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC