Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

TPG4140: Natural Gas: Project

Natural Gas Sweetening & Effect of Declining Pressure

Supervisor
Prof. Jon Steinar Gudmundsson

Participants
Ahsin Nazir Ayoub Ismailpour Fahad Saleem Muhammad Usman Idrees Syed Amjad Hussain Zaidy

Department of Petroleum Engineering & Applied Geophysics

Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Abstract

Demand of natural gas is increasing as it is cheaper than oil and a clean fuel. Natural gas contains impurities like water, CO2, H2S, COS, mercury & N2. To meet pipeline specifications/LNG specifications theses impurities have to be removed. Amines processes are the developed technology available today for the removal of acid gases (CO2 & H2S). MEA, DEA & MDEA are selected as commercial solvents keeping in view the feed gas composition. When the gas reservoir pressure declines, new wells are usually drilled to maintain production rate and front end compression may become necessary in the later stages of field life. But after a while when front end compression is also unable to supply gas with enough pressure, the pressure of the sweetening unit starts declining. In the present study the effect of declining pressure on these sweetening processes is studied using HYSYS simulations. Two cases are considered, firstly by reducing the pressure of absorber at given sour gas flow rate while keeping the CO2 composition in sweet gas fixed using adjust function. It was found that the lean amine flow rate to absorber increases as pressure goes down which eventually leads to higher energy requirement during the regeneration stage. Secondly, the sour gas flow rate was manipulated for a given amine flow rate and specified CO2 content in sweet gas from which it was found that amine sweetening unit capacity gets reduced as the pressure goes down.

Dedicated to Planet Earth

Acknowledgments

We extend our deepest gratitude to Prof. Jon Steinar Gudmundsson for his guidance and help and his kind feedback which made it possible for us to come up with this report.

Table of Contents
Abstract 1.0 2.0 Introduction Process Selection
2.1 2.2 Available Processes

6
7 7

Choice of solvent

10 12 14 15

3.0 4.0 5.0

Process description HYSYS Simulations Optimization


5.1 5.2 5.3 Optimization of absorber (MEA Case) Optimization of absorber (DEA Case) Optimization of absorber (MDEA Case)

15 16 17

6.0

Effect of declining pressure 6.1 6.2 Effect of declining pressure on lean Amine flow Effect of declining pressure on capacity of amine unit

17 18 20 22 23 24

7.0

Conclusion References Appendices

Introduction
Natural gas from reservoir contains impurities like water, CO2, H2S, COS, mercury & N2. In order to meet pipeline/LNG specifications these impurities have to be removed. Removal of acid gases (CO2 & H2S) from natural gas stream is known as natural gas sweetening. If the aim is to produce LNG or N2 removal by cryogenic processing then CO2 must be removed up to 50 PPM in order to avoid solidification in exchangers, pipes or in turbo expanders [2]. Hydrogen sulfide in the presence of water forms a weak, corrosive acid that cause premature failure of valves, pipelines and pressure vessels. Carbon dioxide is also corrosive in presence of water and lowers the heating value. Natural gas is used as domestic fuel which makes it necessary to remove H2S from gas because of the health hazards associated with it. The threshold limit value (TLV) for prolonged exposure of H2S is 10 ppm. At 0.13 ppm, H2S can be sensed by smell. At 4.6 ppm, the smell is quite noticeable. As the concentration increases beyond 200 ppm, the sense of smell fatigues, and the gas can no longer be detected by odor. At 500 ppm, breathing problems are observed and death can be expected in minutes. At 1000 ppm, death occurs immediately [3].

Table-1.1: Specifications of a pipeline quality gas [1]

2.0 Process Selection


2.1 Available processes Process selection depends upon the pressure and composition of the raw natural gas, the trace components and their composition, and the desired quality of marketable natural gas (pipeline specification of LNG specification). The design of the absorber and the amount of solvent

required are determined by the absorption behavior of the least soluble compound to be removed [4]. Some of the available processes are

1. Membrane 2. Adsorption 3. Physical absorption 4. Chemisorption Important points to be considered before choosing a process for natural gas sweetening are: The concentration (partial pressure) of acid gases. In our case partial pressure of acid gases in sour gas is 78.6 psig and partial pressure of acid gases in sweet gas is 2.74 psig. The specifications of the outlet gas (low outlet specifications favor the amines). The temperature and pressure at which the sour gas is available. High partial pressures of the acid gases in the feed favor physical solvents, whereas low partial pressures favor the amines. The volume of gas to be processed. The capital, operating, and royalty costs for the process. The environmental regulations. Relative economics [5]

1. Membrane process Membranes can be used to remove bulk of CO2 but high feed pressure is required. Membranes are thin polymer-based barriers that allow preferential passage of certain substances over others. Gas separation through membranes relies on the principle that gases dissolve in and diffuse through the membrane polymers. The difference in gas permeability rates through the membrane

provides the basis for the separation. The separation is actually driven by the component partial pressure differences across the polymer membrane [5]. 2. Adsorption process Acid gases, as well as water, can be effectively removed by physical adsorption on synthetic zeolites. Applications are limited because water displaces acid gases on the adsorption bed [2]. 3. Physical absorption Physical absorption processes are generally most efficient when the partial pressures of the acid gases are relatively high, because partial pressure is the driving force for the absorption. These processes are recommended for use when the partial pressure of the acid gas in the feed is greater than 50 psi but these solvents are very sensitive to pressure [6]. 4. Chemisorption Following reagents may be employed for chemisorption process: A. Hot potassium carbonate solution The hot potassium carbonate process is used to remove both CO2 and H2S in the gas stream. It works best on a gas with CO2 partial pressures in the range of 30-90 psi [3]. B. Amines Amines are well suited for applications where the acid gas partial pressures are low and low levels of acid gas are desired in the residue gas since their acid gas removal capacity is relatively high and insensitive to acid gas partial pressure as compared to physical solvents. The hydroxyl group serves to reduce vapor pressure and increase water solubility, while the amine group provides the necessary alkalinity in water solutions to promote the reaction with acid gases. (Kohl, 1997). The following Amines are extensively used in industry for CO2 removal.

i.

Mono Ethanol Amine (MEA)

It is more alkaline and thus more reactive than any other amine but it has high vapor pressure that may cause loss of chemical inventory of a sweetening system but it can be overcome by water wash plates at top of the absorber. Due to high heat of reaction with CO2, it requires more energy during regeneration process. It has the highest capacity among the amines for acid gases. (Kohl, 1997) Furthermore, MEA solutions are appreciably more corrosive than solutions of most other amines, particularly if the amine concentrations exceed 20% and the solutions are highly loaded with acid gas. This feature limits the capacity of MEA solutions in cases where high partial pressures of the acid gases would permit substantially higher loadings. In general, corrosion inhibitors are effective in CO2 removal systems, permitting MEA concentrations as high as 30% to be used. [9] At low partial pressure of acid gases amine concentration can be increased. MEA is still the preferred solvent for gas streams containing relatively low concentrations of H2S and CO2: and essentially no minor contaminants such as COS and CS2. This is especially true when the gas is to be treated at low pressures, and maximum removal of H2S and CO2 is required. The low molecular weight of MEA, resulting in high solution capacity at moderate concentrations (on a weight basis), its high alkalinity, and the relative ease with which it can be reclaimed from contaminated solutions are advantages, which in many cases more than counterbalance inherent disadvantages [9].

ii.

Di Ethanol Amine (DEA):

Aqueous solutions of diethanolamine (DEA) have been used for many years for the treatment of refinery gases which normally contain appreciable amounts of COS and CS2, besides H2S and CO2. Secondary amines are much less reactive with COS and CS2 than primary amines, and the reaction products are not particularly corrosive. Consequently, diethanolamine and other secondary amines are the better choice for treating gas streams containing COS and CS2.

10

The low vapor pressure of diethanolamine makes it suitable for low-pressure operations as vaporization losses are quite negligible. One disadvantage of diethanolamine solutions is that the reclaiming of contaminated solutions may require vacuum distillation. Another disadvantage of DEA is that DEA undergoes numerous irreversible reactions with CO2, forming corrosive degradation products, and for that reason, DEA may not be the optimum choice for treating gases with a high CO2 content [7].

iii.

Methyl Di Ethanol Amine (MDEA)

It has a low vapor pressure and thus, can be used at concentrations up to 60 wt% without appreciable vaporization losses. Even with its relatively slow kinetics with CO2, MDEA is used for bulk removal of CO2 from high-concentration gases because energy requirements for regeneration are lower than those for the other amines. MDEA process is particularly useful when CO2, is present at high partial pressures, as either no steam or only a small amount of steam is required for regeneration. The rate of CO2, absorption in MDEA can be significantly increased by the addition of relatively low concentrations of primary or secondary amines [7].

2.2 Choice of solvent The choice of amine concentration may be quite arbitrary and is usually made on the basis of operating experience. In our case partial pressure of gases in flue gases is 78.65 psig and partial pressure of acid gases in sweet gas is 2.74 psig. Membranes are often used to bulk removal of CO2 while adsorption only applicable for small production units so we can use physical solvents or alkanolamines (Figure-2.1) [2]. MEA is most reactive and has high capacity for CO2 loading than any other amine (more sites are available for bond formation in one molecule of MEA than any other amine molecule). Lower molecular weight of MEA than other amines but more acid gas loading hence less flow rate of absorbent is required in case of MEA and less pumping cost. If there is CS2 or COS present in small amounts in sour gas so degradations issues with MEA system and hence cannot be used. Mixture of MDEA & activator peprazin is becoming more popular as it has low vapor

11

pressure and less degradation. Mixture of amines can also be used depending from case to case. MDEA based mixed amine systems are flexible as selectivity for H2S and CO2 can be adjusted by blending MDEA with primary or secondary amine in right proportions [7].

Figure-2.1: Process selection chart for simultaneous removal of CO2 & H2S present [2] Physical solvents tend to dissolve heavier hydrocarbons, and the presence of these heavier compounds in significant quantities tends to favor the selection of a chemical solvent. Solvent must be high solubility in water, low volatility, less corrosive, low viscosity (low viscosity facilitates both heat and mass transfer with less pressure drops and pump cost), non-toxic, nonflammable, chemically stable and cheap (Kohl 1997). Three amines i.e., MEA, DEA and MDEA have been selected from figure-2.1 keeping feed gas composition given in Appendex-1 for simulation & optimization up to flash tank. Typical process parameters are listed in the Table-2.1.

12

Table-2.1: Approximate guidelines for Amine processes [6]

3.0 Process Description


Flow scheme for all amine sweetening units is generally similar. MEA reacts with CO2 and H2S as following: [3]

13

The general process flow diagram for amine absorption is shown in Figure-2. The fundamental underlying principle is the exothermic, reversible reaction between a weak acid (e.g., CO2) and a weak base (e.g., amine) to form a soluble salt. The inlet gas is contacted counter-currently with lean solvent in the Absorber. The acid gases are preferentially absorbed by the solution. Rich amine pressure reduced to 100 psig so the entrapped gases (mostly methane) flashed off. The solution, enriched with H2S & CO2, is pre-heated before entering the Stripper where, through the addition of heat, the reaction is reversed. From the bottom of the column, the lean solvent exchanges heat with the rich solvent entering the column and are recycled back to the Absorber. From the top, high-purity (dry-basis) acid gases are produced [2]. The choice of amine-concentration is often arbitrary and made on basis of experience (Kohl, Nielsen, 1997). In general, corrosion inhibitors are effective in sweetening processes which allows the use of high concentration of amine [9]. DEA concentration range is 30-40 wt. % (GPSA, 2004) but HYSYS can be applicable up to 50 %. MDEA can be used up to 60 wt%. Reboiler temperature is dependent on solution concentration, vent line back pressure and/or residual acid gases content required. The stripping of acid gases from amine solution is aided by raising the temperature of the operation. This may be done by increasing the pressure of the reboiler [7]. The reason that CO2, stripping from MEA solution increases with increased reboiler pressure can be explained on the basis of the effect of temperature on vapor pressures. The vapor pressure of CO2 over an amine solution generally increases with temperature more rapidly than does the vapor pressure of the water/amine mixture over the same solution. As a result, stripping to the same mole fraction CO2 in the vapor phase means stripping to a lower mole fraction in the liquid when the pressure (and thus the boiling point) is raised. It should be noted that this phenomenon is peculiar to CO2 in MEA and will neither occur with other amines nor with H2S in MEA. The solution CO2 loading drops rapidly in the column immediately below the feed point, then decreases more slowly until the bottom of the column is reached [7].

14

Figure-3.1 Process flow diagram of MEA treatment of natural gas [2] At temperatures above 245F (118.4oC) a side reaction with CO2 exists that produces oxazolidone-2, a heat stable salt, and consumes MEA from the process so temperature of the reboiler must be less than this. Lean amine is recycled back after exchanging heat to incoming rich MEA and cooling (Kohl, 1997). The top three plates of the absorber serve for water washing of sweet gas that reduces the amine vapors in it (field experience).

15

4.0 HYSYS 2006.5 Simulations Simulation is done using Amine Package with Kent Eisenbergs Thermodynamic Model for Aqueous Amine Solutions and non ideal vapor phase model. PFD of simulations along with material and energy balance is shown in figure-3 & 4. Specification of sweet gas is around 50 ppm CO2.

Figure-4.1 PFD of Natural Gas Sweetening using MEA, material and energy balance Rest of the figures along with material and energy balance is in the appendex-4.

5.0 Optimization
5.1 Optimization of absorber (MEA case) Absorber is optimized separately using adjust function and spread sheet. CO2 specification (50 ppm) in sweet gas is defined in the spread sheet (SPRDSHT-1) then user defined target value is put in the adjust function (ADJ-1) window. Now values of Lean MEA flow rate and rich loading which is also defined in the spread sheet noted by increasing number of trays. (Table-2.1 in Appendix-2)

16

Figure-5.1: Optimization of MEA Absorber using spread sheet and adjust function There is very less change in Lean MEA flow rate and rich loading after increasing the number of plates from 18. Hence, the optimum numbers of plates for the absorber are 18 in terms of flow rate of MEA but there is limitation for rich MEA loading which should not exceed more than that of 0.5 mole CO2/mole of MEA due to downstream processing of rich MEA (Kohl, 1997). Hence 11 numbers of plates selected. After optimization, optimum parameters impart in the simulation and see the effect of decline in pressure. 5.2 Optimization of Absorber (DEA case) Absorber optimization is similar to that of in MEA case in HYSYS. (Table-2.2 in Appendix-2)

Figure-5.2: Optimization of DEA Absorber using spread sheet and adjust function

17

Optimum number of plates are 20 which satisfy both flow rate and rich loading limit for DEA (0.35-0.65 moles CO2/mole DEA) [6]. 5.3 Optimization of Absorber (MDEA case) Absorber optimization is similar to that of in MEA case in HYSYS. (Table-2.3 in Appendix-2)

Figure-5.3: Optimization of MDEA Absorber using spread sheet and adjust function Figure-5 shows the flow rate curve become flat after 38 plates while rich loading is not in the range (0.4-0.55 moles CO2/moles of MDEA). HYSYS is not simulating good sweetening using MDEA. So we decided to drop the case and not analyzing effect of declining pressure. 6.0 Effect of declining pressure During initial phase of field operations gas flow out of the well because of natural pressure in the reservoir. Pressure let down by well head choke. Once the pressure start declining, new wells can be drilled depending upon reservoir to maintain pressure. Choke opening has to be increased during production to maintain design flow to processing facility with passage of time. Finally the the last option is to install front end compression. Compression station may be installed at inlet of processing facility or near well head. Well head compression is more efficient and has more productivity (Statoil decided to installed subea well head compression for sgard). When

18

even the compression cannot maintain pressure in sweetening unit one has to increase amine flow rate. At plant design stage usually pumps are design with some margins in later stage of field operations (field experience) but once lean amine pumps reached bottle neck then declining pressure results in reduction of sweetening unit capacity[6]. 6.1 Effect of declining pressure on lean Amine flow

The comparative capacities of MDEA and MEA for CO2 removal in an absorption/flash process are shown in Figure-6.1. If it is assumed that equilibrium is attained in both the absorption and striping steps and that isothermal conditions are maintained, the maximum net capacity is simply the difference between equilibrium concentrations at the absorption and stripping partial pressures [7] . If pressure of the absorber column decreases due to decline in reservoir pressure then partial pressure of CO2 will also be reduced and hence the rich amine loading (moles of CO2/moles of amine) will get reduced. In order to compensate for these effects the amine solution flow rate will have to be increased which in turn will affect the energy efficiency of the process.

Figure-6.1: Comparative capacities of MEA & MDEA for CO2 recovery [7]

19

There are other effects like amine & water losses and increased energy consumption per unit volume of gas processed due to increased amine flow rate. If more amine flow rate is employed it will not only increase pumping cost but will also result in more energy consumption during regeneration.

Figure-6.2(a): Effect of declining pressure on amine flow rate and rich MEA loading at constant gas flow rate

Figure-6.2(b): Effect of declining pressure on amine flow rate and rich DEA loading at constant gas flow rate

20

Figure-6.2(c): Effect of declining pressure on amine flow rate and rich DEA loading at constant gas flow rate

6.2

Effect of declining pressure on capacity of amine unit

Declining of absorber pressure results in reduction of the capcity of absorber at a given amine flow rate and sweet gas specification (figure-6.3).

Figure-6.3: Effect of declining pressure on capacity of natural gas amine sweetening unit [6]

21

Adjust function (in HYSYS) was used once again for given specification of sweet gas (50 ppm CO2) but this time manipulating sour gas flow for the already optimized fixed amine flow rate. It is observed that reducing absorber pressure affects the sweetening and CO2 will increase in sweet gas but at same time adjust function reduces the sour gas flow rate to meet the target specification which results in capacity reduction of the tower as shown in figure-6.4(a).

Figure-6.4(a): Effect of declining pressure on natural gas MEA sweetening unit Similar effect can be seen if DEA or MDEA is used as absorbent (Figure-6.4b & 6.4c).

Figure-6.4(b): Effect of declining pressure on natural gas DEA sweetening unit

22

Figure-6.4(c): Effect of declining pressure on natural gas MDEA sweetening unit

Conclusion
The declining pressure of gas from the reservoir has direct effect on the amine solution flow rate. As the gas pressure goes down, the amine flow rate needs to be increased in order to meet the sweet gas specifications. This will result in increase of overall energy requirement for the process due to the costs associated with pumping higher flow rates and cost of increased energy needs for the regeneration of solution. But in the extreme case when solution circulation limits have already been reached there can be no option but to decrease the inlet sour gas flow rate to keep sweet gas specs under control. This will thus limit the production rate. The options of changing the amine type and/or increasing the amine concentration may also be considered keeping in view the margins available in the design limits but these effects have not been studied in this short report.

23

References:
[A] Natural Gas Information 2010: IEA Statistics; International Energy Agency; 2010; Paris; pp-II.3 Engineering Data Book; 12th ed.; Volume 1, Sec. 2; Product Specification; Gas Processors Suppliers Association; Tulsa OK; 2004; pp-3 Kidney, A.J & Parrish, W. L.; Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing; Taylor & Francis; 2006; pp (93-127). Arnold, K. & Stewart M.; Surface Production Operations, Vol. 2; Ed. 2; Gulf Publishing Company; Houston TX; 1999; pp 151-153, 164-167,190. Wiley Critical Content-Petroleum Technology; Vol.1; John Wiley & Sons; 2007; pp-378 Engineering Data Book; 12th ed.; Volume 2, Sec. 21; Hydrocarbon Treating; Gas Processors Suppliers Association; Tulsa OK; 2004; pp 21-25 Engineering Data Book; 12th ed.; Volume 2, Sec. 21; Hydrocarbon Treating; Gas Processors Suppliers Association; Tulsa OK; 2004; pp 6-14 Kohl, A. & Nielsen, R; Gas Purification; Ed. 5; Gulf Publishing Company; Houston TX; 1997; 50-57. Polasek, J.C. & Bullin, J.A; Selecting Amines for Sweetening Units; Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc.-Technical Papers; 2006; pp 2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[-]

24

Appendices
Appendix-1 Table-1.1: Sour and sweet gas composition

Sour gas pressure=

1100

psig

Sour Gas Components Methane Ethane Propane Iso-butane N-butane Iso-pentane N-pentane Hexane Heptane N2 CO2 H2 S H2 O Mol % 87.48 0.9 0.26 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.09 4 7 0.15 0.08
100

Sweet gas pressure= Sweet Gas Mol % 93.7 0.98 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.09 4.2 0.25 0.0004 0.14
100.0 78.65 2.74

1095

psig

Partial Pressure (psig) 962.28 9.9 2.86 0.99 0.55 0.44 0.33 0.77 0.99 44 77 1.65 0.88 1100

Partial Pressure (psig)


1026.015 10.731 3.285 1.095 0.5475 0.438 0.3285 0.7665 0.9855 45.99 2.7375 0.00438 1.533 1095.0 psig psig

Partial pressure of acid gas in sour gas= Partial pressure of acid gas in sweet gas=
Appendex-2

Table-2.1: Optimization of absorber using HYSYS (MEA Case) Plates 10 11 12 13 14 15 Solution flowrate Kgmole/hr 16980 14200 12680 12370 12060 11970 Rich Loading moles CO2/mole MEA 0.472 0.5646 0.6322 0.6481 0.6648 0.6697

25 16 17 18 19 20 21 11900 11810 11740 11710 11670 11650 0.6739 0.6791 0.6828 0.6847 0.6871 0.6883

Table-2.2: Optimization of absorber using HYSYS (DEA Case)


Plates 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Solution flow Kgmole/hr 93270 76290 53180 38040 27670 20270 14780 10790 8644 7966 7680 7549 7477 7449 7422 7422 Rich loading moles CO2/mole DEA 0.03584 0.04383 0.06288 0.0879 0.1209 0.165 0.2263 0.3099 0.3869 0.4198 0.4354 0.443 0.4472 0.4489 0.4504 0.4506

Table-2.3: Optimization of absorber using HYSYS (MDEA Case)


Plates 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Solution flow Kgmole/hr 2926000 2220000 1317000 894000 643300 481200 370500 Rich loading moles CO2/mole MDEA 0.001418 0.001869 0.003151 0.004641 0.00645 0.008623 0.0112

26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 292400 235500 193100 160600 135100 114600 98330 84830 73820 64570 56720 0.01419 0.01762 0.02148 0.02584 0.0307 0.03621 0.04219 0.04819 0.0562 0.06425 0.07314

Appendex-3 Table 3.1(a): Effect of declining pressure on MEA sweetening unit (11 plates in absorber) performance (HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 flow rate of MEA Kgmole/hr 0.6167 0.6039 0.5818 0.5423 0.4803 0.4196 0.3714 Rich loading moles CO2/moles MEA 13040 13270 13780 14780 16690 19100 21580

Table 3.1(b): Effect of declining pressure on DEA sweetening unit (20 plates in absorber) performance (HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 7584 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 flow rate of DEA Kgmole/hr 0.4354 0.4353 0.4272 0.42 0.41 0.3886 Rich loading moles CO2/moles DEA 7680 7680 7827 7960 8153 8603

27 4500 0.3499 9556

Table 3.1(c): Effect of declining pressure on MDEA sweetening unit (20 plates in absorber) performance (HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 7590 6590 5590 4590 3550 flow rate of MDEA Kgmole/hr 537700 617300 769200 1005000 1413000 Rich loading moles CO2/moles MDEA 0.007707 0.006712 0.005388 0.004122 0.002932

Table 3.2(a): Effect of declining pressure on MEA sweetening unit capacity ((HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 6950 5950 4950 3950 2950 Rich loading moles CO2/moles MEA 0.5705 0.5216 0.5121 0.4169 0.339 Sour gas flow rate (kmol/hr) 7962 7281 7150 5821 4773

Table 3.2(b): Effect of declining pressure on DEA sweetening unit capacity ((HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 7590 6590 5590 4590 3550 Rich loading moles CO2/moles DEA 0.4313 0.4275 0.4076 0.3682 0.2906 Sour gas flow rate (kmol/hr) 7260 7199 6865 6201 4894

28

Table 3.2(c): Effect of declining pressure on MDEA sweetening unit capacity ((HYSYS Simulation results)
Pressure of absorber kPa 7590 6590 5590 4590 3550 Rich loading moles CO2/moles MDEA 0.01233 0.01157 0.009921 0.0082 0.007 Sour gas flow rate (kmol/hr) 7342 6889 5910 4885 4170

Appendex 4

Figure-4.2 PFD of Natural Gas Sweetening using DEA, material and energy balance

29