hybrid membrane-absorption processes for acid gas...
TRANSCRIPT
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
1
Dr Tom Rufford, The University of [email protected]
Acknowledgments: Michael Schlierf, Technischen Universität Müchen, Germany
Hybrid membrane-absorption processes for acid gas removal
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 14–16 November 2016. A full copy of the paper is available through SPE’s OnePetromanuscript number IPTC-18732-MS.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
2
Highlights
Comparison of (1) conventional MDEA amine absorption and (2) hybrid membrane + amine process to treat sour gas for feed to an LNG plant.
Feeds with 10%mol CO2 no apparent benefits of a hybrid system.
Very sour feed gas with 50%mol CO2 the hybrid system has potential for significant reductions in equipment weight, plant volume, investment costs, and operating costs.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
3
Rufford et al. (2012) J. Petroleum Sci. & Eng 95-95:p123-154
Typical LNG process flow scheme
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
4
This project seeks to evaluate the potential of a hybrid membrane + absorption process to treat sour gas onboard FLNG plants.
Challenges for gas processing in remote or stranded fields
Feed to LNG plant has tight specification, e.g.:• CO2≤50ppmv• H2S ≤4ppmv
To meet these specifications amine plants require large columns, large solvent inventories, high demand for energy.
Floating LNG (FLNG) and micro-LNG plants may need significant reductions in weight, cost, and energy demand.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
5
A
B
Membrane unit alone could not achieve 50ppmv CO2
Overview of processes compared
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
6
Two feed cases based on Roussanalyet al. (2014)
Simulations in Aspen Hysys V8.6
Process metrics considered:Methane slip (MS)Relative energy demand (RED)Dry equipment weightDry installed weightTotal plant volumeEquipment cost & installed costOperating cost
Aspen Process Economic Analyzer
Feed1 Feed2Feed compositions in mole
%Methane 83 41Ethane 5 4.5Propane 2 3.5CO2 10 50H2S 0 1H2O 0 0N2 0 0Temp., °C 40 40Pressure, bar 70 70Flow Nm3/h 590,000 590,000
Summary of methodology
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
8
50% methyl-di-ethanolamine (MDEA) solvent + piperazine (PZ)Contactor: P=70bar; Mellapak 250Y structured packingStage efficiencies: 0.15 CO2; 0.8 H2SStripper: 1.9 bar, 50ºC
Base Case: 50% MDEA absorption
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
9
Run absorber hard to get 50 ppmv CO2 for LNG prep. (vs 2% pipeline gas)Optimized solvent rate = 1258m3/h
Feed 1, 10% CO2
Solvent rate required to achieve 50 ppmvCO2 specification
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
10
Feed1 Feed2CO2, %mol 10 50H2S, %mol 0 1Solvent rate m3/hr 1258 4105Absorber stages 20 20Absorber diameter, m 10 15Stripper stages 7 7Reboiler duty, Btu/gal leansolvent
880 880
Summary amine unit requirements for Feed 1 and Feed 2
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
11
Membrane separation
unit
Sour feed gas
CO2
Hybrid membrane-amine process
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
12
Material: cellulose acetate (CA) membraneSelectivity P_CO2/P_CH4 = 15 (Niu and Rangaiah, 2014)Selectivity P_H2S/P_CH4 = 19
Permeate pressure = 1.38 bar
Membrane thickness = 100 nm (i.e. CA thickness on a substrate)
Modeled membrane unit in a user defined subflowsheet
Membrane separation unit model
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
13
Each mole of CO2 removed in membrane unit reduces solvent rate & reboiler duty required in the amine section. Control = membrane area. Reducing hydraulic load also effects equipment sizing
Feed 1, 10% CO2 Feed 2, 50% CO2 + 1% H2S
Solvent rateBase: 1258m3/hr Hybrid: 1160m3/hr
Solvent rateBase: 4105m3/hr Hybrid: 1360m3/hr
Contactor diameter 15m10m
How much CO2 to remove in the membrane unit?
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
14
CH4 lost across membrane also accounted in Op Costs.
Process metrics spider plot (log scale)
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
15
IPTC-18732-MS • A Technical Evaluation of Hybrid Membrane-Absorption Processes for Acid Gas Removal • Dr Tom Rufford
Process metrics Spider plots (linear)
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
16
No clear advantage of hybrid system for this feed scenario and membrane properties.- 7.8% lower solvent rate in hybrid process, doesn’t impact
column size- 30% drop in energy for reboiler, pumps in amine unitThose benefits offset by:• methane slip in membrane unit• Small increase in equipment weight (MSU + base case amine
unit)• Hybrid process costs all increase
Feed 1 10% CO2 summary
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
17
For very sour gas feed there is potential to use bulk separation properties of the membrane unit.- 67% reduced solvent rate in hybrid process- 80% reduced equipment weight, 50% reduced plant volume
Methane slips increases ~10% CH4 in feed lost across membrane- Still energy savings allow 40% reduction in operating costs- Methane slip has implications on any CO2 processing/storage
plans
Feed 2 50% CO2 + 1% H2S Summary
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
18
Key limitations of study
Assumption gas to membrane unit is essentially dry.
Captures estimate of membrane replacement as an annualised cost, but doesn’t capture any effect of fouling on separation performance
We only looked at 10% and 50% CO2 scenarios, didn’t search for feed concentration at which hybrid process becomes preferred option.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
19
Highlights
Comparison of (1) conventional MDEA amine absorption and (2) hybrid membrane + amine process to treat sour gas for feed to an LNG plant.
Feeds with 10%mol CO2 no apparent benefits of a hybrid system.
Very sour feed gas with 50%mol CO2 the hybrid system has potential for significant reductions in equipment weight, plant volume, investment costs, and operating costs.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
20
This work was funded in part by:• The Australian Research Council (DE140100569)• Technischen Universität Müchen travel support for Michael to
UQ
IPTC attendance supported by SPE Faculty Enhancement Travel Award
Slide 20Acknowledgements
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
21
Unconventional gas research at UQ
Gas separationsHelium recovery
Membranes (da Costa, Smart)
Adsorption (Rufford, Birkett, Zhu)
GTL/GTX (Rudolph)
Modelling (Do, Bhatia, Birkett)
Electrochemical CO2 reduction
Coal seam gasSolids production issues
Relative permeability
Stress-strain-perm models
Two phase flow in the well bore
Well abandonment
https://ccsg.centre.uq.edu.au/
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
22
Cited references
Niu, Mark Wendou, G. P. Rangaiah. 2014. Retrofitting amine absorption process for natural gas sweetening via hybridization with membrane separation (in International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 29: 221-230Roussanaly, S., R. Anantharaman, K. Lindqvist. 2014. Multi-criteria analyses of two solvent and one low-temperature concepts for acid gas removal from natural gas (in Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 20: 38-49.Rufford, Thomas E., Simon Smart, Guillaume C.Y. Watson et al. 2012. The removal of CO2and N2 from natural gas: A review of conventional and emerging process technologies (in Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 94-95: 123-154.
Slide 22
IPTC-18732-MS • A Technical Evaluation of Hybrid Membrane-Absorption Processes for Acid Gas Removal • Dr Tom Rufford
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
23
CRICOS Provider No 00025B
24
Slide 24
IPTC-18732-MS • A Technical Evaluation of Hybrid Membrane-Absorption Processes for Acid Gas Removal • Dr Tom Rufford