Integrated design for gas processing

An integrated approach to designing process line-up delivers a range of

economic, process and environmental benefits
Pavan Chilukuri and Anton Demmers
Shell Global Solutions International

he development of natural gas reserves

containing harder to remove sulphur
species has increased in recent years, while
sulphur limits for treated gas and stack sulphur
dioxide (SO2) emissions have continued to
tighten. This combination has resulted in significant increases in the complexity of acid gas
removal units (AGRU) and sulphur recovery
units (SRU). With standalone designs for AGRUs
and SRUs, licensors may be able to optimise the
process units individually. However, additional
benefits can be realised through an integrated
design.
The key barrier to integration for many
projects lies at the tendering stage. Often, invitation-to-bid (ITB) documents are issued for
dedicated process items such as AGRUs or
SRUs. Constrained by the terms of the ITB,
bidders and licensors can only propose an
ITB-compliant offer for that single unit and
cannot put forward integrated, multi-unit solutions that may be more suitable for the project.
This unit specific approach to tendering may
be guided by a desire to attract multiple bidders
in order to boost competition. However, this
article aims to demonstrate that an integrated
approach typically outperforms non-integrated
designs, and offers lower capital expenditure and
higher net present values.

Available opportunities
At the bidding stage, project developers should
consider that there might be a licensor that can
provide all the required technologies. Having a
single supplier provides an opportunity for the
vendor to optimise the whole gas processing
line-up, which can result in improved net present value for the client.
Having multiple licensors for different parts of

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269

the line-up introduces the problem of each unit

having several different design margins to allow
for any variations in the feed at the unit battery
limit. Selecting an integrated line-up through
one licensor with experience and in-depth
knowledge of each of its units can eliminate that
problem. This is because a vendor that is providing the entire line-up understands the
parameters of each individual unit as well as
how they can best work together. The vendor
can, therefore, hone the design of the whole
line-up to minimise design margins. This has a
positive effect on equipment sizing and capital
expenditure, and, ultimately, on operating costs.
An integrated line-up through one licensor
also boosts flexibility for clients by giving them
access to the licensors entire portfolio of technologies and to its operating experience. This
can enable designs to be changed or refined even
further should the project scope change after the
initial tender is issued, thus minimising the
impact on schedule and costs. It typically also
results in an accelerated schedule for the process
design package and means the single licensor
can often start work on elements of the design in
parallel rather than having to wait for another
licensor to finalise Package A before Package B
can be started.
During the contract stage, the integrated
approach can also reduce the number of interfaces required. With one vendor, there is
typically only one project team on the clients
side. A reduction in project and/or technical
interfaces can remove obstacles to development
and reduce project schedules.
It can also be beneficial because the client only
has to deal with the overall process guarantees for
the whole line-up, rather than defining the battery
limits for every unit with multiple licensors. This

Gas 2016 1

can have a knock-on effect in the operating stage

if there is an issue with one of the guarantee
values. In that instance, licensors may often point
blame at each other, leaving the operator to
determine who is at fault. With one vendor,
where the fault lies is much clearer and it can be
rectified instantly.

Financial savings

and construction phases, thereby reducing the

overall project schedule. A shortened timeline can
bolster the net present value of a project by
enabling the developer to produce oil quicker and
get an earlier return on investment.
Shells analysis showed that, for this particular
onshore sour oil and gas project, the improved
net present value likely to result from using the
fixed capacity line-up would be significantly
greater than the extra investment costs required
during the design stage. Specifically, the design
would enable the developer to avoid a project
delay of one year, which would prevent about a
10% reduction in the projects net present value,
which roughly equates to a $3 billion saving.
Meanwhile, achieving this required only a relatively small additional upfront investment of
$150-250 million.
Another project in the same region saw Shell
Global Solutions initially bidding on two separate units, an AGRU and an SRU, for the gas
processing line-up. After securing the SRU
contract, the company developed an integrated
option to put to the client and found that it
would result in significant savings in capital and
operating expenditure (see Table 1).

Shell Global Solutions experience with providing entire gas processing line-ups has proven the
value of an integrated approach.
For one Middle Eastern project, Shell Global
Solutions started with a contract for a single
unit, but later was able to convince the client to
consider an integrated design after illustrating
the flexibility and value such integrated line-ups
can offer. This particular project faced challenges in defining the feed gas, which meant that
any bespoke line-up design might prove inadequate once more data on the feed became
available.
Early data for the project showed:
The hydrogen sulphide to carbon dioxide
(H2S/CO2) ratio in the feed ranging from 0.25 to
2.5, and likely on the lower side of the range
An uncertain production profile
Sulphur production in the range of 500 to Case study 1
2000 t/d
The first case study involves realising a reduc Uncertain levels of trace components in the tion in capital expenditure through using a
feed, with no data on benzene, toluene, ethylb- heated flash in the AGRU to create a better qualenzene and xylene (BTEX) and heavier alkane ity gas feed to the SRU.
(C6+) concentrations.
For one project in the Middle East, Shell
With
such
uncertainty
Global Solutions was invited to
around the feedstock, Shell
bid on and was selected to provide
A comparison of the capital and
Global Solutions recognised
a stand-alone AGRU using its
operating expenditure for nonan opportunity for the client
proprietary Sulfinol-X solvent,
integrated and integrated gas
to benefit from an integrated processing line-ups for a project in while other licensors were selected
line-up.
Therefore,
it
for the SRU and TGT units. The
the Middle East
proposed an integrated, fixed
company researched some altercapacity line-up with built-in
native configurations to determine

Non- Integrated
flexibility that would enable
the potential value to the client of

integrated line-up
easy replication of the units, if
swapping to an integrated design.

line-up
Capital expenditure
necessary, later in the project
This research showed that the
Capital expenditure with 100
85
without significant cost or
best available integrated line-up
amine treating unit, %
Capital expenditure
schedule impacts.
would involve an AGRU with
with SRU-TGT unit, %
100
90
Analysis showed that this
heated flash using Sulfinol-M
Operating expenditure
fixed capacity options flexibilsolvent. This would enable the
Steam consumption, % 100
75
Solvent circulation, % 100
83
ity would enable the project to
production of an acid gas of
Chilling duty, %
100
95
progress quicker into the front
enhanced quality for the SRU.
end engineering and design,
This solvent swap would come at
and engineering, procurement Table 1
the expense of a slightly higher

2 Gas 2016

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269

solvent rate in the AGRU, but

A comparison of the clients current, multi-licensor configuration with an
would support a reduction in
optimised, integrated configuration
the size and therefore the cost
of the sulphur recovery and TGT

Current, multi-licensor
Alternative, integrated
end of the processing line-up.
Parameter
configuration with
configuration with Sulfinol-M
Table 2 shows that the inte
Sulfinol-X
and Cansol TGT unit
grated solution would result in a
Treated gas CO2 content, mol%
0.003
0.3187

Hydrocarbons (HC): 3.3
HC: 0.8
higher volumetric flow rate of
Acid gas to SRU, mol%
CO2: 41.77
CO2: 31
treated gas owing to less CO2
H2S: 41.74
H2S: 54.7
Air demand, %
100
76
being
coMain combustion chamber
100
76
absorbed into the solvent. This
hydraulic capacity, %
would then increase revenue
from the treated gas.
It also supports the argument Table 2
that a smaller SRU would be
required because the lower CO2
Capital cost comparison between a more conventional process line-up and
content in the acid gas from the
the integrated Shell Cansolv TGT+ line-up
AGRU regenerator would result

Standalone base case
Shell Cansolv
in better quality feed to the

line-up with
TGT+ unit (improved
SRU. CO2 takes up quite some

fuel gas co-firing
operating window)
Relative flows downstream of Claus waste heat boiler
1.7
1.0
volume in the SRU, so, by
Relative capital expenditure
1.0
1.0
reducing that and the amount of
hydrocarbons,
Shell
Global
Source: Shell Analysis
Solutions estimates that the
hydraulic capacity required to Table 3
produce the acid gas could be
20-25% lower. This could lead to 10-15% less Sulfinol. In these cases, the integration of gas
capital expenditure by enabling a reduction in treating process units across the AGRU and SRU
equipment size for the sulphur recovery end of and new breakthrough technologies are necessary to achieve optimal designs.
the processing line-up.
Shells novel gas processing line-ups address
In addition, the lower hydrocarbon content in
the feed to the SRU main combustion chamber these challenges head-on. This particular case
would result in a lower air demand and hydrau- study highlights how, by choosing one licensor
lic capacity for the SRU, and better operability of and taking an integrated approach to gas
the unit owing to the lower risk of soot forma- processing, developers can gain access to a wide
tion caused by incomplete combustion of the range of options and therefore benefit from the
most appropriate process design, even when
hydrocarbons.
handling difficult feedstock.
Shell analysts compared various integrated gas
Case study 2
In case study 2, an integrated approach boosted processing line-ups with more conventional
flexibility and provided access to multiple tech- options for compliance with SO2 emission
nologies. It involved the integration of AGRU/ requirements.
acid gas enrichment unit (AGEU) off-gas with a
In standalone line-ups, BTEX in acid gas is
SRUTGT unit.
handled by using the co-firing option in the SRU
Conventional gas processing line-ups are inad- (see Figure 1).
equate when dealing with difficult natural gas
The preferred integrated line-up used the Shell
reserves in low SO2 emission regimes. This is Cansolv TGT+ system (see Figure 2), which is an
especially true in the presence of organic sulphur integrated sour gas treating solution that enables
(mercaptans [RSH] and carbonyl sulphide ultra low SO2 emissions by capturing 99.9+% of
[COS]) and BTEX. Although bulk COS removal the overall sulphur present in sour gas streams
can be achieved using secondary amines, the while minimising the complexity of the process
removal of RSH requires hybrid solvents such as line-up. This system sits at the back end of a gas

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269

Gas 2016 3

Table 4 shows that the Cansolv

TGT+ with AGEU line-up has
SCOT recycle
Sour gas
much lower fuel gas consumption
compared
with
the
SRU
SCOT Off-gas Incinerator
AGRU
integrated co-firing option. This
(Sulfinol-X)
is because the only fuel gas
consumed in this case is by the
Treated gas to
Sulphur to
SO2 emissions
thermal incinerator. The ability
dew point control
degasser
to route the flash gas to the
incinerator also saves some fuel
Figure 1 The co-firing option in the SRU
gas. In most plants, treated gas
is essentially used as fuel gas, so
Evaluation of the various operating cost contributors comparing the
lower fuel gas consumption
integrated Shell Cansolv TGT+ option with an integrated option using
means a slight increase in prodco-firing and a SCOT unit
uct gas that can be exported or
processed. Although this analysis
Parameter
Integrated option Standalone base
is valid within this system

with Shell Cansolv case with fuel gas
boundary, the requirement to

TGT+ unit
co-firing
Relative fuel gas consumption
1.0
2.1
produce steam using fuel gas
Relative steam consumption (low-pressure steam at 3.5 barg) 1.0
1.1
sometimes dominates the overall
Relative steam production (45 barg saturated steam)
1.0
1.2
Catalyst volume
1.0 (Claus)
1.7 (Claus)
fuel gas consumption in the

No SCOT/TGT
SCOT/TGT unit
plant.

unit catalyst
catalyst required
*Fuel gas used in incinerator only
It is also evident from Table 4
that the Cansolv TGT+ line-up
Table 4
performs
well
in
steam
consumption
and
catalyst
processing line-up and gives operators the flexi- requirements. All three of these components
bility to capture the sulphur in off-gases and make this line-up attractive from an operating
streams routed to the incinerator that would cost perspective.
The benefits of the Cansolv TGT+ unit when
otherwise be emitted to atmosphere.
Table 3 clearly shows that the capital costs of handling difficult feedstocks are clear. Such
the integrated Cansolv TGT+ line-up are compa- benefits can, however, only be maximised if an
rable with those for the more conventional, fuel operator chooses a fully integrated gas processgas co-firing line-up when processing complex ing solution with one licensor. Early interaction
contaminated reserves. The objective of this data between the licensor and the operator is key to
is to emphasise that the integrated Cansolv TGT+ ensuring that the most optimum process design
technology can be comparable in cost to more is uncovered.
traditional line-ups. However, there are significant operating expenditure benefits that may Case study 3
Integration can enable a reduction in overall
result in significant net present value benefits.
Fuel gas
(co-firing)

Off-gas

Sour gas

AGRU

Acid gas

(Sulfinol-X)
Treated gas to
dew point control

AGEU

Enriched
acid gas

SRU

(MDEA)
LIquid sulphur
to degasser

Tail gas

Incinerator

SO2 recycle

Shell
Cansolv TGT+
SOx

Figure 2 The preferred integrated gas processing line-up using the Shell Cansolv TGT+ system at the back end

4 Gas 2016

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269

solvent circulation. This case

Semi-lean solvent loop
study looks at the cascading
Sour gas
SCOT recycle
of semi-lean solvent from
the SCOT unit to the main
SCOT
off-gas Incinerator
SRU
SCOT
AGRU Acid gas
absorber.
Another example of how integration can lead to financial and
Liquid sulphur
SO2
Treated gas
performance benefits is when it
to degasser
enables the reuse of solvents
throughout the gas processing
Figure 3 An integrated gas processing line-up with a SCOT absorber where
line-up.
Shell Global Solutions is expe- the semi-lean solvent is reused
rienced in designing and
operating line-ups with a SCOT absorber. In running at a lower solvent rate without the need
these cases, the solvent used in the SCOT for chilling. This makes it useful for TGT units
absorber can be integrated with the main facing issues with high ambient temperature
AGRU absorber to enable the integration of and/or low specifications for SO2.
the solvent system for the whole line-up (see
To reduce the SO2 emissions further, Shell
Figure 3).
Pressurised Sulphur Degasser technology can be
To achieve this, one regenerator column regen- applied. When operating the degasser at elevated
erates the solvent before it is put through the pressure, the degasser vent gas containing residSCOT absorber to treat the tail gas from the ual H2S and sulphur mist can be routed to the
SRU. The amount of H2S in the SCOT absorber inlet of the SRU rather than via the conventional
is, however, very limited, so the solvent is routed route to the incinerator. Recycling the vent gas
elsewhere midway in the main absorber to pick to the inlet reduces the SO2 emissions from the
up more H2S. By doing that, it is possible to incinerator, as sulphur species are converted to
reduce the total amount of solvent required to elemental sulphur.
treat the gas in the main absorber and, thereAccess to the latest technologies such as this
fore, the overall solvent circulation.
new solvent and the pressurised sulphur degasShell Global Solutions has used this integrated ser is only available if developers interact with
approach to achieve reduced solvent levels vendors during the early stages of project design
across multiple designs, and even to improve the and are open to an integrated approach.
selectivity of an integrated AGEU. Its analysis
has found that an integrated solvent system can Integration successes
reduce solvent levels, and related utilities, by up Shell Global Solutions has a long track record of
to 20% over a line-up using separate solvent integrating gas treating processes. For example,
systems.
the company uses one solvent system at the
Pernis refinery in The Netherlands, which treats
Access to new technologies
all the absorbers in the refinery line-up. This
As previously highlighted, choosing an inte- includes those for SCOT unit gas, hydrocracker
grated gas processing line-up through one gas, liquefied petroleum gas and hydrotreater
licensor can provide developers with access to a gas.
vendors entire technology portfolio, which
Combining gas/liquid treating and sulphur
enables them to benefit from the optimum solu- recovery technologies selected from Shell Global
tion for their project.
Solutions portfolio has resulted in the successful
This ensures that the developer can also access implementation of integrated designs for several
the latest technology on offer. For instance, Shell (sour) gas projects. One example is the Pearl
Global Solutions is now developing a new GTL plant in Qatar, where the full suite of Shell
solvent named XS100. This highly selective licensed gas processing technologies is applied
solvent will be primarily used in a TGT unit in a in combination to ensure a robust and competiSCOT system line-up and can help to reduce the tive design for the worlds largest gas-to-liquids
H2S at the outlet of the absorber while still (GTL) facility.

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269

Gas 2016 5

Conclusion

CANSOLV, SCOT and Sulfinol are marks of Shell.

In conclusion, opportunities for optimisation can

be lost if each process block is designed individually and not in an integrated manner. A tender
that allows for integration offers the opportunity
to realise such optimisation.
Some of the key values of integration in gas
processing are that it enables:
Better control of SO2 emissions and an
improved ability to handle fluctuations in the
feed gas H2S/CO2 ratio
Maximisation of the synergies between units
Better control of design margins
Shorter project execution schedules
Fewer interfaces to manage; for example,
single point of contact for commercial activities.
If project developers are open to an integrated
approach through one licensor in the very early
stages of project development, then it is possible
for them to secure significant financial and practical benefits.

Pavan Chilukuri is Licensing Technical Manager with Shell Global

Systems, Amsterdam, with MENA responsibilities for planning
and delivering process designs that enable best-achievable NPV
for gas processing blocks in upstream and downstream process
configurations. He holds a MBA (strategy) from Duke University
and a professional doctorate (chemical engineering) from Twente
University, The Netherlands.
Anton Demmers is a Senior Process Engineer with Shell Global
Systems, supporting the Shell licensing team, and is design
integrator for complex gas processing third party projects. During
over 30 years with Shell, he has worked in research teams
studying downstream catalytic processes as well as gas treating
processes mostly related to sulphur conversion processes. He
studied chemical analysis in The Netherlands (University of
Applied Science, HBO-B).

6 Gas 2016

LINKS
More articles from: Shell Global Solutions International
More articles from the following category:
Gas Processing and Treatment

www.digitalrefining.com/article/1001269