See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320280725

Acid Gas Removal - Open Art Or Licensed Process?

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 49

1 author:

Arif Habibullah
Specialized Consulting Services
23 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mega Turboexpander Plant Design View project

Gas Plant Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arif Habibullah on 09 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACID GAS REMOVAL – OPEN ART OR LICENSED PROCESS?

Arif Habibullah, P.E.

Specialized Consulting Services
Los Angeles, California, USA

ABSTRACT

A technology assessment of acid gas removal (AGR) processes was recently conducted for a
world-class gas processing facility. Both open art and licensed processes were considered for
this evaluation, the primary object is to determine if licensed processes offer any advantage over
open art designs.

This paper addresses the technical and economic feasibility of open art vs proprietary solvents
for currently available acid gas removal processes. In addition, the paper will share the
technology alternatives studied, pros and cons and economic analysis for selecting the most
suitable process for the application considered. Finally, the paper will summarize the technical
challenges identified during this assessment.

Recently completed AGR unit, showing

Compabloc lean-rich exchangers in
foreground.

~1~
BACKGROUND
For this study the base case Acid Gas Removal (AGR) technology is Diglycol Amine (DGA), an
open art technology, however, newer and proven alternative types of amine technologies
providing better economics, including open art and licensed selective MDEA, were evaluated
and a screening level assessment and recommendation are presented in this report.
Purpose

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a technical and economic life cycle comparison
between three competing AGRU technologies:

 Open-art Diglycol Amine (DGA)

 Open-art Selective Methyldiethanol Amine (MDEA)

 Licensed Selective Methyldiethanol Amine (MDEA)

Study Methodology

The comparison is based on simulations of the open art technologies and licensor input for
various proprietary technologies.

The base case Acid Gas Removal (AGR) technology is Diglycol Amine (DGA), an open art
technology; however, newer and proven alternative types of amine technologies providing better
economics, including open art and licensed selective MDEA, were evaluated. Those technologies
are similar in design with some minor differences; however, a noteworthy difference is that DGA
requires a reclaimer and associated equipment. Detailed simulations, using ProMax simulation
software, were built for the open art DGA and selective MDEA processes.

In addition to technical information concerning the unit feed gas flow, condition, and
composition, this document incorporated a list of constraints, deliverables and requested
guarantees to systematically and objectively analyze, contrast and assess the various technologies
and solvents available on the market. Technical proposals were received from five different
licensors.

An equipment/duty list for each open art and licensed process was compiled and screening level
CAPEX and OPEX estimates were generated. A life cycle analysis was subsequently performed
and the incremental cost of each technology over the base case was determined.

~2~
Technology Features

Flow schemes for the technologies are shown below. The technologies are similar in design with
some minor differences; however, a noteworthy difference is that DGA requires a reclaimer and
associated equipment. Some of the licensors require an intercooler pump-around loop in the
contactor in order to maintain a relatively low temperature profile. Technology features of each
option are summarized in the Table below.
Figure 1: Simplified DGA-based and Selective MDEA AGRU Plant Schematics

Technology Features
Open-Art Licensed
DGA
Selective MDEA Selective MDEA

Commonly used solvent, high reactivity at Original patent (BASF) expired in 2002
low pressures and high temperatures. Piperazine activator added to MDEA and since then many solvent licensors
Popular in 1970s has since been replaced shifts selectivity to CO2. and vendors offer it under a range of
by tertiary amines for better selectivity. trade names.

Uses a reclaimer to remove and eliminate Does not need a reclaimer, has a high
the degraded amines, contaminants and resistance towards both thermal and Same as open art.
heat-stable salts from the system. oxidative degradation.

Requires high circulation rates due to Some licensors allow use of open market
High CO2 absorption capability,
lower rich amine loading due to the highly solvents, i.e. solvent can be purchased
depending on Piperazine % in solution.
corrosive nature of the system. from any supplier.
Circulation rates are lower than DGA, due
1960’s technology with many conversions Several hundred licensed grassroots and
to selectivity, which in turn reduces
to newer solvents, still few operating units solvent conversion units currently
equipment sizes and energy
worldwide. operating worldwide.
consumption.

~3~
Pros and Cons

Some pros and cons for each technology are tabulated below and form the basis for identifying
the incremental CAPEX and OPEX differentials between them.
Open-Art Licensed
DGA
Selective MDEA Selective MDEA
PROS  Piperazine controls selectivity of  Same as open art
CO2  Licensed process can often provide
 Open art process  Open art process lower circulation & energy
 Removes COS  Less corrosive consumption
 High resistance to degradation
 Low vapor pressure
 Lower heat of reaction
 Biodegradable

CONS  Exposure to oxygen forms corrosive  Same as open art

 Non-selective acids  Requires license fee
 Requires reclaimer to keep  Co-absorb some BTX  Some licensors require mandatory
degradation products in check  Introduces a new solvent to HGP use of their solvent
 High solvent vapor pressure, i.e. site
high losses
 Higher circulation and energy
consumption compared to tertiary
amines
 High heat of reaction
 1960’s technology
 Solubility of heavy HCs

Table 1 – Licensor Comparison

Licensor Open-art Open-art Licensor A Licensor B Licensor C Licensor D Licensor E

Selective Formulated Formulated Formulated Formulated Formulated

Technology DGA
MDEA MDEA MDEA MDEA MDEA MDEA
MDEA w/
Solvent DGA Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
Piperazine
Circulation
Rate, 2,750 1,915 Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
GPM
Reboiler
Duty, 128 102 95 101 93 96 129
MMBTU/hr
Power
Consumption, 2,250 1,750 1,850 2,000 1,850 1,900 2,100
HP
Solution
45 45 Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
Strength, wt%
Rich Loading,
0.35 0.4 Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
mol/mol
~4~
CLASS 5 COST ESTIMATE BASIS
Based on equipment lists provided by the licensors, screening level TIC estimates were
prepared including allowances for bulks, piperacks, interconnections, buildings, transportation,
construction and construction management.

Project Economics

Screening level economics for each technology were prepared and incremental revenue, CAPEX
and NPV calculated as shown in the Table 2 below for the shortlisted suppliers.

Sized equipment lists and utility summaries were generated for each option. CAPEX is based on
cost estimates, using kBase, generated from sized equipment lists, as follows:
 Entered sized equipment list into kBase.
 Added assumed size piping rack and piping
 Added assumed size site work and paving
 Entered labor productivity of 3.0 for local conditions
 All in labor rate of $30/hr
 The estimates are considered to be +/-40% for to overall capital costs for each estimate
 The relative difference between the various estimates is projected to be +/-15%

OPEX is based on utility consumption and solvent losses/first charge.

License fees and solvent first fill costs were included in the initial cash flow.

NPV was based on net revenue and net CAPEX for each option.

The basis for the project economics is summarized below:

Cost of power= 7 cents/kWh
Cost of steam= $5.8/MP
Solvent Losses = See Table 2
Discount rate= 5%
License Fees= Included - See Table 2
Solvent First Fill = See Table 2

~5~
 Table 2 - Project Economics Summary

OPEN ART LICENSED

Selective
Description DGA
MDEA
Licensor A Licensor C Licensor D Licensor E

Solvent Costs,
20.70 17.80 Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
$/gal

Solvent First
1.153 0.690 1.157 0.627 0.763 0.863
Fill, $MM

Solvent Losses,
0.058 0.050 0.072 0.050 0.050 0.049
$MM/yr

Power, $MM/yr 1.083 0.843 0.891 0.817 0.784 1.011

Steam, $MM/yr 7.509 5.989 5.615 4.862 5.595 7.594

OPEX, $MM/yr 8.651 6.883 6.578 5.730 6.429 8.655

License Fee,
None None Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
$MM

CAPEX, $MM 87.0 79.9 79.7 67.3 62.6 86.6

Net Revenue,
Base Case 1.768 2.072 2.921 2.221 0.0
$MM/yr

Net CAPEX,
Base Case 7.037 7.278 19.683 24.386 0.384
$MM

NPV, $MM Base Case 31.955 36.480 60.851 55.689 0.389

~6~
TAKEAWAYS

 Licensed designs can offer substantial economic advantages over generic open-art amine
unit designs and should be considered when evaluating and selecting amine solutions.

 Project economics indicate a Licensed C has substantial CAPEX and life cycle cost
savings over DGA and open art selective MDEA.

 This technical and economic assessment indicates a total life cycle cost savings of up to
$61MM can be realized with licensed technology.

 Total CAPEX savings, over generic DGA, are $24.4MM for Licensor D and $19.7MM
for Licensor C.

The major outcomes from this work are:

 Licensed amine unit designs can be very competitive compared to open art designs.
 Based on this assessment, licensed technology is recommended since it offers superior
technical and economic benefits.
 In addition, licensors may offer performance guarantees for maximum amine losses and
maximum reboiler duty for solvent regeneration.
 Unusually high solution strength of 50%, with a rich loading of around 0.44 mol/mol
is not recommended, specifically for a high CO2:H2S ratio environment as it creates a
high corrosion risk.

 Solution strength should not exceed 45%, with rich loading of no more than 0.35
mol/mol, especially for new units.

REFERENCES
TBD

~7~
APPENDIX
Gas Treating Facilities
The gas from the new slug catchers in the Inlet Facilities is directed to the Gas Treating Facilities
for gas sweetening. Sweetening of the gas is accomplished using an activated MDEA solution in
two new Gas Treating Trains , consisting of high pressure (activated MDEA) Amine treating
units.

The gas is first sent to the Feed Gas KO Drum to drop off any feed line condensate. The
overhead vapor from the KO drum is sent to the Feed Gas Particle Filter to remove solid
particles larger than 3 micron, and then to the Feed Gas Filter Coalescer to eliminate possible
foaming in the absorber caused by any small quantity of liquid hydrocarbon droplets (larger than
0.3 micron) and mist. Condensate from the Feed Gas KO Drum, Feed Gas Particle Filter, and the
Feed Gas Filter Coalescer is directed, under level control, to the Condensate Stabilizer train(s) in
the Inlet Facilities.

The droplet-free and mist-free gas then enters the MDEA Contactor (Absorber). The high CO2
gas is contacted counter-currently with lean activated MDEA to remove CO2 from the feed gas.
The lean MDEA temperature (140°F) is at least 20°F higher than the inlet gas temperature
(120°F summer, 80°F winter) to the Contactor.

The CO2 and H2S content in the residue gas generated by the Contactor shall not exceed 50
ppmv and 2 ppmv respectively, and are measured by the analyzer provided at the overhead of the
Contactor.

The H2S content, will not exceed 2 ppm provided the H2S content in the raw sweet gas entering
the facility does not exceed 2 ppm. The Contactor has a Water Wash System with demineralized
water quality to reduce Amine entrainment in the residue gas exiting from the top, and
compensate for water losses from the system.

~8~
Simulation Models

Figure for Open Art Selective MDEA Configuration

Figure for Base Case DGA Configuration

~9~
 Gas Stream Compositions and Rates

Max. CO2 in Feed Composition Basis

Design Cases
Summer Winter

Gas Volume (MMSCFD) 570 570

Pressure Inlet (PSIG) 560 620

Temperature (°F) 120 80

BTEX (PPMV) 450 450

Mole Fraction Mole Fraction
Nitrogen 0.04550 0.04610
Carbon Dioxide 0.03080 0.03110
Hydrogen Sulfide
2 2
(PPMV)
Methane 0.79916 0.80840
Ethane 0.06310 0.06350
Propane 0.02650 0.02590
I-Butane 0.00581 0.00535
N-Butane 0.01080 0.00965
I-Pentane 0.00398 0.00304
N-Pentane 0.00382 0.00275
C6 0.00384 0.00204
C7 0.00205 0.00084
C8 0.00085 0.00028
C9 0.00022 0.00006
C10 0.00005 0.00001
C11 0.00001 0.00000
C12+ 0.00001 0.00000
H2O 0.00340 0.00096

This total design flow of 1,140 MMSCFD is shown in the table above where two different design
cases are considered. They are as follows:
 Max. CO2 in feed composition basis, summer.
 Max. CO2 in feed composition basis, winter.
Feed inlet gas temperature from pipeline can be as high as 140 °F, but is cooled to at least 120 °F
(by others) before entering the feed gas filter/coalescer and amine contactor.
The design product specifications will be to remove Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from the gas feeds to
produce a rich gas stream containing no more than 50 PPMV CO2.
~ 10 ~

View publication stats