CHE4036Z - 2015

Chemical Engineering Design

Individual Feasibility Report

ANONYMOUS CANDIDATE # __405___

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use anothers
work and pretend that it is my own.
I have used the Harvard system for citation and referencing. In
this report, all contributions to, and quotations from, the
work(s) of other people have been cited and referenced.
This report is my own work. I have not allowed, and will not
allow, anyone to copy my work.

Signed ___________________

Dated _____________

CHE4036Z - 2015
Chemical Engineering Design

Individual Feasibility Report

ANONYMOUS CANDIDATE # _405____

Word Count _______1488_____

Executive summary
Purpose of the report
The purpose of this report is to establish the preferred type of process for treating Natural gas
from a wellhead, and after reviewing various process options used worldwide, a suitable
process will be chosen based on viability and compatibility with processing the available natural
gas and meet the predefined specifications.
Evaluated processes
The different process routes explored were, Thiopaq, an environmentally friendly process that
uses bacteria to oxidise H2S to elementary sulphur; Acid Gas Re-injection, which involves the
injection of the H2S and some CO2 into an underground reservoir, but in this case was found to
not viable since it requires an existing well, and for this case no such well is available. Some
other processes explored were the Claus process and the Wet Sulphuric Acid process which
were also focused on sulphur recovery.
Results
The chosen process includes the conventional Claus process with the tail gas treating unit.
Sulphur
Air
Off gas
Claus Process+SCOT

Pre treated natural gas

Sour gas treating unit

(Amine)

Dry natural gas

Dehydration unit

Water

Figure 1: Summary of a chosen process route.

Conclusion
The chosen route was the Claus process fitted with a tail gas treating unit. The gas stream
going to the SA grid has a Wobbe index of 49.8 and contains 5 ppm of H2S. The overall
recovery of sulphur is 99.9% with the rest of the uncovered H2S and CO2 sent to the incinerator
before being released to the atmosphere
i

Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... i
Purpose of the report ................................................................................................................ i
Evaluated processes ................................................................................................................ i
Results ..................................................................................................................................... i
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... i
List of tables and figures ............................................................................................................ iii
List of tables and figures ............................................................................................................ iii
1.

2.

3.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Purpose/motivation of the report .................................................................................. 1

1.2.

Process background .................................................................................................... 1

1.3.

Objectives of the report ................................................................................................ 1

1.4.

Scope and limitations ................................................................................................... 1

1.5.

Key issues ................................................................................................................... 1

Critical evaluation of process options .................................................................................. 2

2.1.

Sour gas treating ......................................................................................................... 2

2.2.

H2S handling and Sulphur recovery ............................................................................. 3

2.3.

Gas dehydration .......................................................................................................... 5

Results of investigation ....................................................................................................... 6

3.1.

Route chosen............................................................................................................... 6

3.2.

Preliminary flowsheet ................................................................................................... 6

3.3.

Key assumptions for the mass balance ........................................................................ 8

4.

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................11

5.

References ........................................................................................................................12

ii

List of tables and figures

Table 1: Table comparing advantages and disadvantages of sour gas treating unit. .................. 2
Table 2: Table comparing advantages and disadvantages of Sulphur recovery unit .................. 4
Table 3: The capital investment and operational costs for treatment of low-pressure gas (Cline,
et al., 2003) ................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 4: Stream table complementing the above block flow diagram ......................................... 9

List of tables and figures

Figure 1: Summary of a chosen process route. ............................................................................ i
Figure 2: Preliminary block flow diagram of the Natural gas process.......................................... 7

iii

1. Introduction
1.1.

Purpose/motivation of the report

This paper is a feasibility study that explores and compares different processes which
treat natural gas from a wellhead by separating the acid gas impurities and recovering
sulphur from the H2S present in the natural gas. The processes are compared based on
their advantages and disadvantages in view of their design cost, reliability and duty. The
chosen process should treat 372 tonnes/hr of natural gas and should recover close to
100% of sulphur from H2S contained from the natural gas with 0 ppm of H2S released to
the atmosphere.
1.2.

Process background

Natural gas processing involves treating the wellhead gas by separating the acids
contained, impurities and dehydrating the gas before it can be used a fuel gas. The
treated gas to be discussed on this paper will be mainly used for the operation of a
power station and is to contain less than 5 ppm of H2S and a Wobbe index of 47.2 and
51.41 MJ/m3. The separated H2S is to be converted to elementary sulphur.
1.3.

Objectives of the report

To determine a viable process route for treating sour gas and recovering sulphur from
H2S by exploring and critically evaluating advantages and disadvantages of existing
processes in view of their design cost, reliability and duty.
1.4.

Scope and limitations

This report is only focused on sour gas treatment, sulphur recovery and the Wobbe
index of the dry gas stream and does not offer insight on the extracting of the gas from
the well and its initial phase separation nor does it go deeper on the fractionation of the
natural gas liquids.
1.5.

Key issues

Getting the 0 ppm H2S concentration specification and Wobbe index in the acceptable
range.

2. Critical evaluation of process options

This section will discuss some of the available process on literature and explore their
advantages and disadvantages in view of their design cost, reliability and duty.
2.1.

Sour gas treating

This unit sweetens the gas coming from the wellhead by removing the acid content which may
be contained in that gas. Such acid gases in this study are the H2S and CO2. This will happen
offshore on the rig, this is to save the limited space on land for the other processing units.
Reactive solvent with MEA as a solvent will be used to absorb both the H2S and CO2 (AbdelAal, et al., 2003) as this has a high selectivity of H2S before sending the acid gas to the sulphur
recovering unit onshore using a different pipeline form the sweetened gas which will also be
further processed on land because of the space limitations on the rig.

Table 1: Table comparing advantages and disadvantages of sour gas treating unit.
Process

Advantages

Chemical absorption

Physical

Batch solid bed

(Reactive solvent)

absorption

absorption

Use regeneratable
solvent that

Regenerated -

Presence of

solvents

CO2 has no

remove large

effect on the

amount H2S and

process

CO2
-

Reliable since it is
an established
commonly used
process

Table 1 continues..
-

Disadvantages

Large equipment

Low

Only works well

that require close

selectivity of

with low

monitoring

H2S,

concentrations

requiring

of H2S

Degradation,

more than

foaming and

one unit

corrosion of the
units hence
regular repairs
Cost

Investment

Operational -

Energy requirement

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

low

low

high

low

medium

(MOKHATAB, et al., 2012)

2.2.

H2S handling and Sulphur recovery

The H2S acid gas handling is another important step. Since H2S cannot be released to the
atmosphere; it is important to consider a process to recover elementary sulphur from it. Such
process involve Acid Gas Re-injection which in this case a has the main disadvantage of that
it requires an existing well, as for this case no such well is available. One other promising
process is Thiopaq, an environmentally friendly process that uses bacteria to oxidise H2S to
elementary sulphur (Shell Global solutions, 2011). However this process has a very small
capacity and can only process a maximum of 150 tonnes/day of H2S, and since the available
gas has a flow of over 400 tonnes/day this process will therefore not be considered as it not
be able to handle the supplied gas. Even though Thiopaq was found to be viable cheap as
seen on Table 3 below the chosen process is the Claus process with the SCOT tail gas
treatment unit. This is due to the Claus process being established with worldwide application
and will assist in increasing the conversion to 99.9% (MOKHATAB, et al., 2012) so as to
minimise the overall H2S released to the environment as per process implementation
specifications.
3

Table 2: Table comparing advantages and disadvantages of Sulphur recovery unit

Process

1. Shell Claus Off-Gas

Advantages

Disadvantages

Treating

Produces very high recovery

of sulphur.

Well established technology

low maintenance

Not economical for feed

concentration of greater than
15%

requirements
-

The unit requires little

operational attention (Shell
Global solutions)

2. Acid Gas reinjection

No worry about handling

H2S

Required an existing well to

inject into, which is currently
not available

Table 2 continues
3. Wet sulfuric acid

more than 99% of the sulfur

high cost of H2SO4 transport

Process low capacity of H2S

is recovered as concentrated

( ROSENBERG, 2006)

sulfuric acid of commercial

grade

4. Thiopaq

flexibility in feed composition

simple layout and operation

Integrates gas purification

with sulphur recovery in one
unit.

All H2S is consumed in the

bioreactor

Table 3: The capital investment and operational costs for treatment of low-pressure gas (Cline,
et al., 2003)
THIOPAQ

Configuration

Amine +

Amine +

Claus

Claus +
SCOT

16.6

17.7

22.2

Operators costs

Low

High

High

Maintenance costs

Low

High

High

Sulphur removal (based on SO2 emitted)

> 99.95

> 95.0

> 99.9

Sulphur recovery (based on S0 produced)

96.5

95.0

99.9

Capital investment + 10 year Operational

costs (MMUS$)

2.3.

NOTE

Gas dehydration

The two possible dehydration routes explored in this paper are adsorption and adsorption.
Absorption with glycol is the preferred dehydration method because it is more economical
than adsorption. This is due to the following differences between absorption and adsorption
(Christensen, 2009)

Adsorbent is more expensive than glycol.

It requires more energy to regenerate adsorbent than glycol.

Replacing glycol is much cheaper than replacing an adsorption bed.

Glycol can be changed continuously, while changing an adsorption bed requires a

shutdown.

3. Results of investigation
3.1.

Route chosen

The route chosen treats the sour gas in an absorber with MEA solvent fitted with the solvent
regenerator, the choice was motivated by the fact that this is an established process with world
wide application (MOKHATAB, et al., 2012). The sweetened gas is dehydrated by absorption
with glycol as a preferred agent since this very economical and requires less energy than its
counterparts (Christensen, 2009). The dehydrated gas goes to the SA grid with a Wobbe index
of 49.8. The sulphur is recovered using a Claus process tailored with a Tail Gas Treatment unit
to improve the conversion to 99.9%.
3.2.

Preliminary flowsheet

The sour gas coming from the wellhead separator is fed to the absorber on the rig to be sweetened
by removing the H2S and CO2 using the amine solvent. The sweetened gas is dehydrated in the
dehydration unit using glycol to remove all the water present in the sweet gas. The dehydrated
gas is then ready to be sent to the SA gas grid. The H2S and CO2 are sent to the Claus process
fitted with the Tail gas treatment unit to increase the sulphur recovery to 99.9%. Elementary
sulphur is separated from the gas and sent to storage whilst the CO2 and very little unconverted
H2S are released to the atmosphere.

Block flow diagram

Air

Sulphur Recovery Unit

(Claus Process)

Sulphur to
storage

Off gas to
atm

Tail Gas Treating Unit

2
10

Sour gas

Sour Gas Treating unit

Natural gas to
sale

Gas Dehydration

Water to
treatment

Sheet: 01/01

Sour gas treatment and

Sulphur recovery process

Date: 21/07/2015

DRAWING No. ZZ-2665

Drawn: No. 405

REVISION No. Rev 01

Figure 2: Preliminary block flow diagram of the Natural gas process

3.3.

Key assumptions for the mass balance

Assumed a basis of 100 kmol/hr of gas coming into the battery limits, which was later
corrected using Goal Seek function in excel.

None of the hydrocarbons are absorbed by the amine solvent.

All water contained in the sweet gas is removed in the dehydration unit.

Clause overall reaction 22 + 2 2 + 22

Conversion of the Clause process is 97%

Tail gas overall reaction 2 + 32 2 + 22

Overall elementary sulphur recovery including the tail is 99.9% with stream 9 and 10 not
calculated in the stream table as all the SO2 formed is completely converted back to H2S
and hence these streams have no effect on the mass balance.

All water formed in the Claus process exit via the tail gas exit stream.

Table 4: Stream table complementing the above block flow diagram

Stream
Mole Flow kmol/hr
Mass Flow kg/hr
Mass Flow kg/hr
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulphide
Sulphur
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
i-Butane
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
Water
Mass Frac
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulphide
Sulphur
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
i-Butane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
Water
Mole Flow kmol/hr
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulphide
Sulphur
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
i-Butane
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
Water
Mole Frac
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulphide
Sulphur
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
i-Butane
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
Water

1
20400
372000

2
585
20360

3
19820
351600

4
19720
349800

5
100
1810

6
2840
81960

7
542
17380

8
3160
84930

3720
0
19220
18490
0
287600
32010
6750
1040
842
319
104
40.3
23
1810

0
0
1870
18490
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3720
0
17350
3.36
0
287600
32010
6750
1040
842
319
104
40.3
23
1810

3720
0
17350
3.36
0
287600
32010
6750
1040
842
319
104
40.3
23
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1810

62870
19100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
17380
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

62870
10420
1870
18.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9760

0
0.0106
0.0106
0
0
0
0.0917
0.0493
0.0496
0.908
9.55E-06 0.0000096
0
0
0
0
0.818
0.822
0
0.091
0.0915
0
0.0192
0.0193
0
0.00296
0.00298
0
0.0024
0.00241
0
0.000296
0.000297
0
0.000115
0.000115
0 0.0000654 0.0000657
0
0.00513
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0.767
0.233
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

133
0
394
0.0986
0
17930
1060
153
17.9
14.5
4.43
1.21
0.403
0.201
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100

2250
597
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0.0067
0.00674
0
0
0
0.0725
0.0199
0.02
0.927
4.97E-06
0.000005
0
0
0
0
0.905
0.91
0
0.0537
0.054
0
0.00772
0.00776
0
0.000904
0.000909
0
0.000731
0.000735
0
0.000223
0.000225
0 0.0000609 0.0000612
0 0.0000203 0.0000204
0 0.0000102 0.0000102
0
0.00506
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0.79
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.01
0
0.0517
0.0497
0
0.773
0.0861
0.0181
0.0028
0.00226
0.00028
0.000108
0.0000618
0.00485
133
0
437
543
0
17930
1060
153
17.9
14.5
4.43
1.21
0.403
0.201
100
0.00651
0
0.0214
0.0266
0
0.879
0.0522
0.0075
0.000878
0.00071
0.000217
0.0000592
0.0000197
0.00000987
0.00491

0
0
42.4
543
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

133
0
394
0.0986
0
17930
1060
153
17.9
14.5
4.43
1.21
0.403
0.201
100

10

0
0.74
0
0.123
0
0.022
0 0.000218
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.115
0
0
0
0
542
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2250
326
42.4
0.543
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
542

0
0.711
0
0.103
0
0.0134
0 0.000172
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.172
9

10

4. Conclusion
The chosen route was the Claus process fitted with a tail gas treating unit. The gas stream
going to the SA gas grid has a Wobbe index of 49.8 and contains 5 ppm of H2S. The overall
recovery of sulphur is 99.9% with the rest of the minimal uncovered H2S and CO2 sent to the
incinerator before being released to the atmosphere.

11

5. References
ROSENBERG, H., 2006. Topsoe wet gas sulphuric acid (WSA) technologyan attractive
alternative for reduction of sulphur emissions from furnaces and converters, Johannesburg: The
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Abdel-Aal, H. K., Aggour, M. & Fahim, M. A., 2003. Petroleum and Gas Field Processing.
Dhahram: Marcel Dekker.
Christensen, D. L., 2009. Thermodynamic simulation of the water/glycol mixture, Aalborg:
Aalborg University Esbjerg.
Cline, C., Hoksberg, A., Abry, R. & Janssen, A., 2003. Biological process for H2S removal from
gas streams The Shell-Paques/Thiopaq gas desulfurization process. Norman (Oklohoma),
Conference Proceedings LRGCC.
MOKHATAB, S. et al., 2012. Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Processing. 2nd ed.
Gulf Professional Publishing: Gulf Professional Publishing.
RETIRED, G. H. et al., 2012. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Natural Gas,
Volume 23, pp. 740-741.
Shell Global solutions, 2011. THIOPAQ O&G, s.l.: Shell Global Solutions International BV.

12