ECONOMICS OF ACID GAS REINJECTION: AN INNOVATIVE

CO2 STORAGE OPPORTUNITY

Sam Wong1, David Keith2, Edward Wichert3, Bill Gunter1and Tom McCann4
1
Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
2
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
3
Sogapro Engineering, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4
McCann & Associates, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT

Acid gas streams, consisting primarily of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2), are commonly
generated as a by-product of the gas sweetening process used to bring produced gases and solution gases
up to pipeline specifications for sales and transport. In the past, the conventional methods for acid gas
disposal are to use a Claus process or to flare the acid gas.

A new technology called acid gas reinjection has emerged over the past ten years in Canada as an effective
way of ensuring that acid gases are not emitted into the atmosphere. There are 38 acid gas reinjection
projects presently operating in Alberta. This technology involves compressing the acid gas and injecting it
into a suitable underground zone, similar to deep well disposal of produced water. Essentially, the sulfur
compounds and CO2 are permanently stored in the deep geological formation preventing their release to
the atmosphere. Therefore most acid gas reinjection projects can be considered as existing examples of
CO2 geological storage projects. These projects provide important practical experience with CO2 storage.
In addition, this technology could be extended to capture a significant fraction of the natural gas-associated
CO2 stream at low cost.

In this paper, a cursory economic analysis is made on one of the Alberta acid gas reinjection projects
relative to sulfur recovery for determining the amount of CO2 avoided.

INTRODUCTION

The capture of CO2 from the production and use of fossil fuels and its storage in geological formations
may offer the ability to make early and deep reductions in CO2 emissions without abruptly abandoning our
fossil-based energy infrastructure [1, 2, 3]. While the economics of CO2 mitigation are uncertain, to a
rough approximation it appears that CO2 capture and storage (CCS) fills the gap between the lowest costs,
most immediately available measures of CO2 mitigation, such as moderate energy efficiency
improvements, and the higher costs associated with a transition to a non-fossil primary energy supply.
Given its intermediate cost, one might expect that CCS technologies would play no role in achieving small,
near term reductions in emissions. There is however an important, though limited, suite of technological
niches where CCS technologies may be applied at low cost. The most important of these opportunities
involve non-combustion sources of CO2. The cost of capturing CO2 and compressing it to the pressures
required for geological storage (of order 100 atmospheres) is primarily dependent on the scale and purity
of the CO2 stream to be captured. Combustion sources have CO2 concentrations of 5 to 15%; and for these
dilute streams the cost of capturing CO2 dominates the cost of storage, accounting for perhaps 3/4 of the
overall cost of CCS [4]. For non-combustion sources the cost of capture is smaller, and can be zero for
sources of nearly pure CO2.

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds.) © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Although the great majority of CO2 emissions arise from combustion, significant non-combustion sources
of CO2 exist. In Canada, the three most important non-combustion sources of CO2 are natural gas
processing, hydrogen production and ammonia manufacture. These sources have high concentration of
CO2 and they in turn can provide important opportunities for early application of CCS technologies. This
paper focuses on an application from the natural gas processing industry.

ACID GAS REINJECTION

Raw natural gas may contain significant impurities, with CO2, H2S, and N2 being the most important.
“Sour gas” by definition is natural gas that contains H2S. In order to meet sales gas contract specification,
sour gas must be treated for the removal of virtually all of the H2S. For very low H2S content (ppm level),
disposable chemical such as SulfaTreat may be used to remove the sulfur. For higher H 2S content, a
chemical absorption process with amine may be used. Typically, the amine absorption method captures
most of the CO2 in addition to the H2S. The resulting CO2 + H2S (acid gas) must then be processed to
eliminate the H2S. The least cost method to eliminate H2S is to flare the acid gas stream burning the H2S to
SO2 and releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere, along with the SO2. Over recent decades, concerns for the
environmental effects of sulfur emissions have eliminated flaring as an option for all except the smallest
facilities. Another option is to process the acid gas in a sulfur recovery unit such as a Claus plant, which
produces sulfur as a salable byproduct, but releases the CO2 as before. In response to falling sulfur prices
and increasingly stringent restrictions on residual SO2 emissions, the industry has recently begun to
abandon sulfur recovery in favor of acid gas disposal. For the largest plants, the lowest cost route may still
be sulfur recovery, but for plants with lower H2S fluxes the lowest cost option is to compress the full acid
gas stream (CO2 and H2S) and dispose of it in a suitable geological formation (see Figure 1).

G a s p l a n t:
Electricity Sales gas output
NGL recovery,
a n d o ther materials
a c i d g a s re m o v a l,
N G L
dehydration,
Sour gas
c o m p re s s i o n t o
Wastes and other emissions
input
p ipeline pressure

Electricity
Electricity

a n d o ther inputs
Acid gas stream to

A G I o r Sulfur recovery

A c i d G a s I n j e c t i o n: C O a n d re s i d u a l S O vented
Sulfur recovery : 2 2

c o m p re s s i o n , d e h y d ra t i o n M o d i f i e d C la u s o r Sulfur to storage
and injection other process Wastes and other emissions

C O 2
+ H 2S t o

g e o lo g i c a l r e s e r v o i r

Figure 1. Schematic showing gas plant acid gas going to acid gas reinjection or sulfur recovery.

The first acid gas reinjection operation in Alberta, Canada was started by Chevron Canada Ltd. in 1989 at
Acheson, where 15% H2S and 85% CO 2 were injected into a depleted oil pool. The number of injection
sites in Alberta has since increased from 1 in 1989 to 11 in 1995, to 29 in 1998 and to 38 in 2002. There
were another 6-8 acid gas reinjection sites in British Columbia, Canada. Acid gas compositions of the 38
Alberta projects range from 4-75% H2S and15-95%CO2, with minor amounts of C1+ gases making up the
balance. The current average injection rates at all sites is ~0.4 Mt CO2/year. At 14 sites, acid gas is injected
into depleted oil and gas reservoirs, while the remaining 24 sites into deep saline aquifers whose salinity
reaches up to 340,000 mg/l. Injection depths vary between 700 and 2,920 m. The injection horizons, of
which 14 are in sandstones and 24 in carbonate rocks, vary in thickness from 4 to >200 m.

Acid gas reinjection involves three steps: compression, dehydration and injection. The acid gas exit from
the amine absorption unit is saturated with water vapor. It is at low pressure and slightly above air
temperature. The stream is sent to a compressor located at the plant, which boosts the pressure of the acid
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds.) © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
gas to the required injection pressure. The compressors are multistage reciprocating machines, mainly
using four stages to boost the pressure of the acid gas to the required injection pressure level. The key to
successful operation of injection facilities is the control of the water content. When the gas enters the
injection line after compression, its water vapor content must be sufficiently low that the gas remains
under-saturated in water content all the way to the bottom of the well. This can be done by dehydration
during compression, or by appropriate inter-stage cooling if the final pressure is above about 7,000 kPa.

Maintenance of the compressors is normal, similar to the maintenance requirement for sour gas
compressors. Most injection lines are designed to operate at very low stress levels in the pipe. Emergency
shutdown valves are installed at each end of the injection lines. The injection wells are equipped with sour
gas tubing, and in most cases have premium threads. Subsurface safety valves are installed in most wells a
few joints below surface. The overall experience of the projects in Alberta has been that the compression
and injection of the acid gas into deep formations is readily achieved, and is trouble free.

ECONOMICS OF ACID GAS REINJECTION

For the acid gas reinjection projects currently operating in Alberta, they are typically small. Data for one
such project are listed in the following:
Sales gas output: 620 103 m3/day with a CO2 concentration of ~1.6%
Acid gas compressor inlet pressure: ~0.1 MPa Outlet: 4.5 MPa
3 3
Acid gas flow: 13 10 m /day
Acid gas composition: at 92.5% CO 2, 6% H2S
CO2 flow to storage: at 92.5% CO2 is 12 103/d or 22.3 t/d CO2 (8,140 t/year)
H2S flow to storage at 6% H2S is 0.8 103 m3/d or 1.1 t/d sulfur (400 t/year)
Power consumption for the acid gas compressor: 108 kW
Depth of injection zone: 1,500 m
This plant had a small Claus unit before, but as sour gas production from the surrounding area declined, it
became technically and economically infeasible to run the Claus plant, as the sulfur throughput was
reduced to about 1 t/d. With flaring not being an environmentally favorable option, the plant converted to
acid gas reinjection.

For an acid gas reinjection project of this size, capital costs would be of the order of Can. $ 3.05 million,
with the breakdown approximately as follows:
Injection well Can. $ 0.80 million (drilling $ 600,000, completion $ 200,000)
Compressor package Can. $ 1.50 million (stainless steel piping, coolers and vessels)
Glycol unit for acid gas dehydration $ 0.5 million
Pipelining & control Can. $ 0.25 million
Using a 10% rate of return over a project life of the 20 years, the capital charges would be about $ 358,000
per annum. Operating costs would be about $ 150,000 per year, with the majority being electric power cost
for running the compressor. Therefore, the annual charge would be $ 508,000. To amortize over the 400
tonnes of sulfur produced, cost of sulfur recovery would be about $ 1,270 /t of sulfur.

An alternative to treat sulfur of this size would be a liquid redox process such as LO-CAT. Capital cost for
a 1 t/day LO-CAT unit would be about Can. $2 million. The cost of operating the unit was estimated at
$340,000 per annum. Therefore, the cost of sulfur recovery using this unit would be of the order of $1,400
/t sulfur recovered. Hence, acid gas reinjection would be preferred.

CO2 AVOIDED

If the acid gas compressor is powered by off-site electricity (as typically the case) then calculating the net
CO2 emissions reductions (CO2 avoided) achieved by acid gas reinjection requires accounting for CO2
emissions from off-site generation of electricity. Given the power rating of 108 kW and the CO2 flow rate
of 22.3 t/day, the power consumption of the acid gas compressor would be (108 x 24 /22.3) or 116.2 kWh/t
of CO2 compressed.

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds.) © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Using a CO2 emission factor for average electricity generation in Alberta of 0.93 kgCO2/kWhr and a
transmission efficiency of 90%, the CO2 emitted in the acid gas compression would be (116.2 x 0.93 / 0.9)
or 120 kg CO2 /t of CO2 compressed. In other words, for every tonne of CO2 compressed and injected into
the reservoir, 120 kg or 0.12 t of CO2 is generated in the compression step. This translates to a mitigation
efficiency of 88%.

The CO2 emissions from compression could be reduced by using natural gas for on-site electric generation
instead of power from the grid (effectively substituting coal for gas). It may also be possible to reduce
emission even further by driving the acid gas compressor with a combustion turbine with heat recovery for
use elsewhere in the plant. Hence, CO2 avoided is dependent on the specific surface facility and the fuel
used. The CO2 avoided for the project described above is then 0.88 x 22.3 x 365 or 7,162 t of CO2
annually. Alternatively, if we consider the project as CO2 storage project only (sulfur removal is a bonus),
the cost of the CO2 avoided would be ($ 508,000 / 7,162) or Can. $ 70 /t CO2.

CONCLUSIONS

Acid gas injection is important step towards large-scale capture and geological storage of CO2 emissions. It
provides a technological and regulatory experience that could serve as a foundation for mitigating CO2
emissions through geological storage.

Technological experience: Acid gas injection is proven technically and economically for replacing the
Claus process. It is being deployed widely in Western Canada. It provides practical, near-term experience
with large volume injection of CO2 into a variety of geological structures (in a couple of cases the acid gas
is injected into a producing reservoir).

Regulatory experience: Technological capability alone is insufficient for geological storage to play a
significant role in mitigating CO2 emissions. Geological storage must evolve into a system comprising a
suite of technologies linked by a network of institutions, financial systems, and regulations that is able to
achieve broad public understanding and acceptance. The regulation of a new activity does not arise in a
vacuum; instead it is strongly shaped by the existing regulatory and institutional context. What form these
regulations assume: what entities are involved in project approval and ongoing oversight; how co-operative
or adversarial the regulatory process is; and how many opportunities are presented for litigation and other
third party interventions. These taken together are critically important in determining the economic
attractiveness and social feasibility of geological storage. Acid gas disposal provides the best existing
analog for CO2 storage. Unlike CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery, the regulatory framework for acid
gas reinjection is centered solely on assuring safe, long-term storage.

Considering the wide range of in-situ characteristics and operating conditions, the acid gas reinjection
operation in the Alberta Basin constitute a perfect analogue for large-scale CO2 geological storage into on-
shore continental sedimentary basins, particularly in North America.

REFERENCES

1. Parson, E. A. and Keith, D.W. (1998). Fossil Fuels without CO2 Emissions, Science 282(5391): 1053-
1054.
2. Herzog, H. (2001). What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Environmental Science &
Technology 35(7): 148 A-153 A.
3. Gunter, W.D., Wong, S., Cheel, D.B. and Sjostrom, G. (1998). Large CO2 Sinks: Their Role in the
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases from an International, National (Canadian) and Provincial (Alberta)
Perspective, Applied Energy 61, p. 209-227.
4. Herzog, H. (2000). The Economics of CO2 Separation and Capture, Technology 7 (supplement 1): 13-
23.

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds.) © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved