American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 2301-2005 Issue 71 (2012), pp. 135-142

© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm

Natural Gas Sweetening by using Iron Sponge Process: A Case

Study of Hamilton North Gas Field

Ribwar Kermanj Abdulrahman

School of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
Koya University, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
E-mail: Ribwar.ABDULRAHMAN@gmail.com
Tel: +964(0)7702134369

Immanuel Sebastine
School of Science & Engineering
Teesside University, United Kingdom
E-mail: i.m.sebastine@tees.ac.uk
Tel: +4401642 738523

Abstract

Natural gas is considered the most important and popular fuels in the current era
and future as well. Moreover, the demand of natural gas in recent decade has been
dramatic. However, because the natural gas is existed in deep underground reservoirs so it
may contain several non-hydrocarbon components for example, hydrogen sulphide and
carbon dioxide. Moreover, these impurities are undesirable compounds and cause several
technical problems for example, corrosion and environment pollution. In fact, there are
several methods and processes for gas sweetening for example, chemical absorption, solid
bed method and physical absorption. Indeed, Hamilton North Field is located in the East
Irish Sea-UK (Gluyas and Hichens, 2003). According to raw natural gas stream
compositions, the Hamilton North gas field is contained small amount of Hydrogen
sulphide (H2S) gas about 30 ppm. Moreover, this H2S amount may consider small and it
could be treated by adopting iron sponge process. Thus, this study aims to design iron
sponge process for Hamilton north field. Moreover, design calculations covered several
process design points for example, vessel diameter which it calculated (76 cm) and gas
cycle time (30 days).Furthermore, the iron sponge cost is also calculated in this study.

Keywords: Iron sponge, Gas sweetening, Process design, hydrogen sulphide

Some nomenclature
RMM Relative Molecular Weight CO2 Carbon dioxide
H2S Hydrogen sulfide SG Specific gravity

1. Introduction
Natural gas considers the most important and popular fuels in the current era and future as well.
Moreover, the demand of natural gas in recent decade has been dramatic. In fact, natural gas poses a
huge role in the recent world economy and development. Furthermore, Natural gas has various using
for instance, household energy, industrial energy, electricity generation and used as main raw material
Natural Gas Sweetening by using Iron Sponge
Process: A Case Study of Hamilton North Gas Field 136

for chemical and petrochemical industries. However, because natural gas is located in underground
reservoirs so it usually contains some impurities for example, H2S and CO2. Indeed, the presence of
these impurities could cause several problems for instance, corrosion and environment pollution.
Hence, raw natural gas should be cleaned from acid gases. Moreover, gas sweetening is also achieved
in order to meet gas pipelines specifications and gas sale contracts that it referred to 4 ppm for H2S and
2% for CO2 in natural gas stream. In addition, there are several natural gas sweetening method and
processes for example, chemical absorption, solid bed method and physical absorption. However, each
of these method has unique advantages and disadvantages for specific gas conditions and process
selection may be depended on several parameters for example, cost, gas stream compositions and
technology available. Indeed, Indeed, Hamilton North Fields are located in the East Irish Sea-UK
(Gluyas and Hichens, 2003). According to raw natural gas stream compositions, the Hamilton North
gas field is contained small amount of Hydrogen sulfide(H2S) gas about 30 ppm or (0.003%).
Moreover, this H2S amount may consider small and it could be treated by adopting iron sponge
process. As Stewart and Arnold (2011) notes that “Iron sponge process economically applied to gas
containing small amount of H2S”. However, this work is just an academic study to investigate and
apply iron sponge gas sweetening process to treating this gas.

2. Solid Bed Sweetening Method

Solid bed sweetening method may consider one of important Natural gas sweetening methods and
oldest method as well. Furthermore, this method consists of several processes that it has the same
concept for instance, iron sponge process and zinc oxide proses. Infect, it achieves by using solid
sweetening agents. Furthermore, solid bed sweetening method bases on adsorption principles
.Moreover; it is used fixed bed of solid particulars which it can remove the acid gases from the natural
gas. As Stewart, M. and Arnold, K. (2011) notated that “Fixed bed of solid particles be used to remove
acid gas either through chemical reactions or through ionic bonding”. Indeed, the modus operandi of
this method is achieved by passing the sour gas through a fixed bed of solid particles that adsorbs the
acid gases and removes it from the Natural gas. Therefore, the bed should be regenerated time to time
to remove the impurities and make sure it at high purity to achieve maximum sweetening efficiency. In
fact, the most common processes of this method could be showed in the following:
• Iron sponge process
• Molecular sive process
• Sulfa-Treat process
• Zinc oxide process
Iron sponge process is a good example of solid bed method. Iron sponge process may consider
the most common process in solid bed method. Furthermore, it considers the oldest process that used in
Natural gas sweetening. However, it may have limited application in time being because it may
consider suitable to remove small amount of Hydrogen sulfide and it needs handle care as well.
137 Ribwar Kermanj Abdulrahman and Immanuel Sebastine
Figure 1: Typical iron oxide process flow diagram.

3. Process Design Calculations (Iron Sponge Process)

Given Hamilton North field data:

Table 1: Hamilton North Field composition data (Gluyas and Hichens, 2003).

Component Mole%
Hamilton North Field Data H2S 0.003
CO2 0.4
Field Hamilton North Field N2 7.7
Flow rate 2400 std. m3 / hrr CH4 83
Pressure 8400 K.Pa C2H6 5
Gas density 0.65 Kg/m3 C3H8 1.8
Gas SG (Air=1.0) 0.6 C4H10 1.3
Temperature °C 38 °C C5H12 0.797

3.1. Water Content Calculations

The raw natural gas which been given is analysis in dry based. Therefore, it’s quite important to
calculate the water content in the gas. However, many scientists have mentioned different methods to
calculate the water content in the gas. However, some of it is not quite accurate. Therefore, many
designers and researchers have recommended that to use several methods for given natural gas to either
calculate or estimate the water content.

1. The Empirical Method

Empircal method may consider the oldest and most pupular method which it gives fast
result.Moreover, by using figure (2) and adopting given gas pressure and temprature water con tant
kg
could be estimated easily. Therfor, for given gas the water contant is about W = 800 .
MMstdm3
Natural Gas Sweetening by using Iron Sponge
Process: A Case Study of Hamilton North Gas Field 138

Figure 2: The McKetta-Wehe Chart for Estimating the Water Content (Carroll, 2009).

2. Using Graph and Equations (Checking for First Method)

As Campbell (1979), notes that this method could be considered more accurate than other methods and
it may specialize in calculating the water contain for sour gas.
W=(y*Whc)+(y1 W1)+(y2 W2)
Where:
W= water content into natural gas
Whc= water contants of hydrocarbons in part of natural gas (calculate by graph)
W1=water contanys of C2O (calculate by graph)
W2 = water contents of H2S(calculate by graph)
y = hydrocarbon mole friction in total natural gas.
y1=C2O mole friction
y2=H2S mole friction
From table (1) given, y=0.9189 for total HCs in gas feed
Y1=0.004 CO2, Y2= 0.00003 H2S
kg
By using the, figure (2) Whc = 800
MMstdm 3
kg
To calculate W1: Use figure (3), W1 = 1400 and use figure (4) to calculate
MMstdm3
kg
W2 = 2500
MMstdm3
139 Ribwar Kermanj Abdulrahman and Immanuel Sebastine
Figure 3: Water content of CO2 (Campbell, 1978)

Figure 4: Water content of H2S (Campbell, 1978)

kg
Thus, W = (0.9189 ∗ 800) + (0.004 ∗ 1450) + (0.00003 ∗ 3000) = 742
MMstdm3
It seems from above result that the first method is accurate. Therefore, the water content in
kg kg
given Natural gas is about W = 800 3
= 1.92
MMstd .m hr
Thus, the new water contents value should be applied on N.G stream composition to calculate
new N.G composition:
Natural Gas Sweetening by using Iron Sponge
Process: A Case Study of Hamilton North Gas Field 140

Table 2: Natural gas compositions and calculations. Done by using MS excel V.2010.

3.2. Design Calculations

Step one: calculation minimum vessel diameter.
As Stewart and Arnold (2011) note the following equation to calculate
1/ 2
⎛ QgTZ ⎞
d min : d min = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ PVgmax ⎠
Where:
dmin= Minimum internal vessel diameter, cm
Qg= gas flow rate, std.rm3/hr
T = operating temperature, K°
Z= compressibility factor =0.85(GPSA figure 23-8)
P = operation pressure, Kpa.
Vgmax= maximum gas velocity, m/s, for design v=3 m/s (new book)
⎛ 4200 ∗ 311 ∗ 0.85 ⎞
1/ 2

d min = 8.58 ⎜ ⎟ = 56.95cm

⎝ 8400 ∗ 3 ⎠
Step two: calculate minimum diameter for deposition
1/ 2
⎛ Qg X H 2 S ⎞
d min = 4255 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ /
o ⎠
Where:
Ø=Rate of deposition g/h, for design = 628 (Stewart and Arnold, 2011).
X H 2 S =Mole friction of hydrogen sulfide
⎛ 4200 ∗ 0.0000299 ⎞
1/ 2

= 4255 x ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 628 ⎠
Thus, dmin=45.484 cm
The above result is Compatible with design standards
Step three: calculate maximum diameter:
1/ 2
⎛ QgTZ ⎞
d max = 8.58 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ PVgmin ⎠
Where:
dmax= maxmum internal diameter, cm
141 Ribwar Kermanj Abdulrahman and Immanuel Sebastine

Vgmin= Minimum gas velocity, m/s. for design = 0.61 m/s (Stewart and Arnold, 2011).
⎛ 2400 ∗ 311 ∗ 0.85 ⎞
1/ 2

d max = 8.58 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 8400 ∗ 0.61 ⎠
=95.5cm
This value is consistent with the design considerations. As (new) note “any diameter from 43.1
to 95.5 cm is acceptable.
Step four: choosing a cycle Time of one month and optimize the vessel diameter and bed
height.
Fe d 2 He
tc = 1.48 ∗10 −6
Qg X H 2 S
Where:
tc = cycle time ,days
Fe = iron sponge content, kg Fe2O3/m3
e = efficiency (0.65-0.8)
H = bed height, m
d= vessel diameter, cm
⎛ 30 ∗ 2400 ∗ 0.0000299 ⎞
Thus, d 2 H = ⎜ −6 ⎟
⎝ 1.48 ∗10 ∗116 ∗ 0.65 ⎠
d2H=19,291

d= 76 cm could be considered acceptable choice for vessel diameter. Since tc and e are
arbitrary and H=3.3 m bed is appropriate with design standards.
The relationship between vessels diameter and bed height could be showed by mathematical
graph:
Step five: Calculate volume of iron sponge to purchase.
Bu=0.0022d2H
Bu=0.0022x 762 x3.3
Bu=42 bushels
The above result is Compatible with design standards

4. Results and Discussion

The process design is done and the whole design results can be summarized in table (3):

Table 3: design calculation results

Minimum minimum maximum

vessel volume of
internal vessel diameter for internal cycle Time Bed height
diameter iron sponge
diameter deposition diameter
0.5695 m 0.45484 m 0.955 m 30 day 0.76 m 3.3 m 42 bushels
Natural Gas Sweetening by using Iron Sponge
Process: A Case Study of Hamilton North Gas Field 142

It seems that from results above, the cycle time is 30 days and it proves that this method needs
long time to be achieved. Furthermore, the bed of vessel need 42 bushels which about 1.14 tonnes of
iron sponge. The iron sponge price in market today is about $400 per iron sponge tonne (Beijing
Kaibiyuan Trading, 2012). Thus, the bed cost is about is £294. Infect, this price may consider a quite
cheap for gas industry. As a result, it seems that the operation and capital cost for iron sponge is
cheaper than other sweetening methods. However, it has several disadvantages for example; need long
time, batch process, needs handle care to change the bed.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

This study is attempted to describe the solid bed method for natural gas sweeting and it is achieved
process design calculations for Hamilton North fields as a case study. Moreover, the iron sponge
process design is achieved for several iron sponge vessel parameters for instance, vessel diameter is
about 0.76 m, bed height is about 3.3 m and cycle time is 30 day. It seems that from this study
calculations, the using of iron sponge process for Hamilton North Gas Field is quite possible and
economical. However, solid bed method could not consider suitable to apply in practical work for
several reasons for example, batch process, dealing with small quantity of natural gas, need a long time
and handle care. Therefore, it can argue that solid bed method may suitable to apply for natural gas
stream with low acid gases content there is no requirement for high daily production of natural gas.

References
[1] Gluyas, G. and Hichens, H. (2003) United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields. Bath: Geological
Society. Mokhatab, S. ,Poe, W. and Speigh, J. (2006) Handbook of natural gas transmission and
processing. Texas: gulf publishing co.
[2] Kumar, S. (1987) Gas production engineering. Taxis: gulf publishing company.
[3] Smith, R. 1990 Practical natural gas engineering .Oklahoma: pennwell books.
[4] Beijing Kaibiyuan Trading (2012) Iron sponge. Available at: http://www.kbytrade.com/
(Accessed: 22 June 2012).
[5] Stewart, M. and Arnold, K. (2011) Gas Sweetening and Processing Field Manual. Waltham:
Gulf professional publishing.
[6] Maddox, R. (1982) gas and liquid sweetening. Oklahoma: Campbell petroleum co.
[7] Carroll, J.(2010) Acid Gas Injection and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration .New jersey: Scrivener
Publishing.
[8] Coker, A. (2010) Ludwig's Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants:
Distillation, Packed Towers, Petroleum Fractionation, Gas Processing and Dehydration vol
2.Oxfork: Elsevier.
[9] Arnold, k. and Stewart, M. (1999) Surface Production Operations: Design of gas- handling
systems and facilities. Oxford: PennWell.
[10] Abdel-Aal, K. and Aggour, M. (2003) Petroleum and Gas Field Processing. New York: CRC
Press.