GTL- The Technical Challenges

Peter Brook, Manager LNG and GTL, Oil and Gas Division, Foster Wheeler Energy Limited Designing and implementing a Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) plant project is complex and contains many challenges. This paper focuses on some of the technical challenges encountered when increasing the capacity of the individual units and the integrated GTL complex as a whole. It is based on the Sasol Slurry Phase DistillateTM (Sasol SPDTM) process used on the Qatar Oryx GTL project. Foster Wheeler has assisted Sasol with the GTL process and project development since 1995. Key Drivers There are many drivers that have to be taken into account when implementing a GTL venture. This paper addresses three particular areas: Capex reduction by increasing the train capacity, i.e. economies of scale The drive for thermal efficiency by optimal energy integration within the GTL complex and Recovery and efficient use of this energy within the utilities systems of the GTL complex.

Gas-to-Liquids Fischer-Tropsch Process Overview The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) GTL conversion technology converts natural gas into liquid transportation fuels and related petrochemical feedstocks. The FT reaction chemistry was discovered in the 1920s and was used by Germany during World War II to produce high quality aviation fuel. Production of liquid hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch reaction can be considered as a proven technology. Despite this early discovery the production of transportation fuels produced from low priced crude oil in refineries was more economically attractive until now. A typical Fischer-Tropsch GTL process producing middle distillates is shown in Figure 1.

Air Natural Gas Air Separation Hydrogen

O2 Syngas Generation CO H2 FischerFischerTropsch

(CH2)

Product Upgrade

LPG Naphtha Kero/Diesel

Utilities, Power, Heat Recovery, HPU

SMI- GTL Conference

Figure 1- Fischer-Tropsch Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) Process Overview The main processing steps following the upstream gas plant are outlined below: The Air Separation Unit (ASU) which provides the oxygen required for the synthesis gas unit. Natural gas which has been processed in the gas plant for removal of contaminants and heavier components hydrogenated in a hydrodesulphurisation step flowed by H2S absorption to remove almost all sulphur components with the final gas containing parts per billion levels of sulphur. The oxygen from the ASU and treated natural gas are then heated and reacted in the reforming reactor. The hot syngas is cooled with boiler feed water to generate steam before being sent to the FT synthesis section. In the FT synthesis reactor the syngas is converted to a synthetic waxy crude in the presence of a catalyst. As the FT synthesis reaction is exothermic, cooling is achieved by generating a large amount of medium pressure (MP) steam. The waxy crude hydrocarbons are hydrotreated and cracked to produce paraffinic chains which are included within the diesel and naphtha products. Some LPG is also produced in the process. If desired waxes and base oils can also be produced from the process. The hydrogen required for the hydroprocessing is produced from either syngas or from a separate natural gas reformer. The steam generated in the process is usually utilised for motive shaft power, process heating and generation of electric power required for the plant operation.

The Technical Challenges - Economies of Scale It is an established fact of project execution that doubling the size of a 100% unit to 200% does not cause the total installed cost (TIC) to double. Typically the cost rises by an

exponent of about 0.6, this results in a factor of 1.5, i.e. 2 0.6. In other words 2 X 50% units will cost more than a single 100% unit giving the same installed capacity. This phenomena is called Economy of Scale and is what drives the project developer to build large single stream units wherever feasible. To understand what economies of scale can be realised within a GTL project, it is necessary to understand what the maximum capacity of a single GTL train could be.

The largest ASU is currently around 3,600 tpd. However, larger units of 5,000 tpd capable of supporting a FT train size of 25,000 bbl/day are considered by the manufacturers to be within their design capabilities. An autothermal reforming (ATR) process (a train) with reactor capacity of 8,000 tpd syngas which is equivalent to 17,000 bpd GTL product is currently under construction for start-up end-2005. With the combination of higher ASU capacity and reduction in oxygen consumption, a syngas unit capacity adequate to make between 25-30,000 bpd of GTL products is possible. The FT slurry bed reactor capacity using cobalt based catalyst is currently around 17,000 bpd. The challenge is to increase this to match the ASU and the syngas unit capacities to 25-30,000 bpd. The capacity of the hydroprocessing unit in the refinery industry is around 60,000 bpd. With increased train capacity the requirements for utilities also increase. The integration and heat removal from the syngas and FT units and the design of the utilities become more challenging.

To summarise, based on individual unit capacities as they currently stand, the future single train capacity associated with an ASU capacity of 5,000 tpd oxygen would be around 2530,000 bpd. A future large scale GTL complex could comprise three ASUs, three syngas trains, three FT trains and one product upgrade unit to produce 75-90,000 bpd of GTL products and in this way achieve significant economy of scale. Gas-to-Liquids Process Internal Energy Integration Overall the FT based GTL process is exothermic giving out useable energy as waste heat from high and low grade producers that can be used to power the process. The energy issues are best visualised using an "Energy Bubble" concept as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2- Process Energy Issues- The Energy Bubble A finite amount of energy is required by the process in order to make it work - the driving force. Some of this energy is released within the process in the form of fuel streams, steam and waste heat. The rest ends up in the hydrocarbon products produced. When the balance is made a finite quantity of energy is available as useful energy from the process as high grade and low grade waste heat. The energy available is greater than energy needed as the GTL process overall is exothermic. However, the energy available is generally not at the level or grade needed by the process. The challenge is to use available energy cost effectively. Complex integration to achieve a balance can be at the expense of excessive capital cost. Alternatively more energy can be imported (e.g. as fuel) to make the Energy Bubble bigger and increase the amount of high grade energy available - making integration easier but with a resultant impact on project economics. A balance needs to be made on project economics - is it cost effective after considering the impact on operating costs, balanced against making capital costs lower? Key high grade users are natural gas reforming, oxygen and steam generation, product work up fired heaters and recycle compressors. There are large high grade producers - HP steam from syngas heat recovery and fuel gas from several sources and large-scale low grade energy production from FT synthesis heat of reaction. The challenge is that high grade energy needs exceed availability, and so low grade heat must be used cost effectively. There are several options available to balance the high grade heat dilemma. Internal integration is effectively a challenge to match the energy needs with what is available - cost effectively. One option is to import further energy to balance the high grade requirements - but at what impact on operating costs? More high grade heat can be generated as a utility and as described above options are available to use either boilers generating steam or gas turbines, whichever is most cost effective. Excess energy available from the process can also be exported - but is it cost effective? A critical review needs to be made of high grade sources and users. The two main processgenerated high grade heat sources are tail gas and HP steam. Options exist here as to their

end-use. What is the best way to use tail gas, noting that it has a low calorific value-making some options less attractive than others? Effective low grade energy utilisation posses a greater challenge. It may be more optimal to minimise production or even consider disposal. Using low grade heat for power generation is very expensive and is not a preferred option. In certain situations low grade heat can be used for pre-heating duties or for sea water desalination. Internal energy integration needs to be achieved during the design process to match the GTL complex energy needs with what is available internally as waste energy in a cost effective manner. The results are not necessarily what you would expect. In the discussion that follows later in this paper about the choices open to drive the air compressors in the ASU the first thought would be that steam turbine drivers using steam raised at very high pressure, typically at 100bar, should achieve a more efficient overall plant performance. However this was found not to be the case as the optimised design uses HP steam raised at a lower pressure as the motive steam for the ASU steam turbine drivers.

Air Separation Unit Technical Challenges For the reasons given above, ASU design has been one of the key factors governing the single-train GTL plant capacity. It is the area of highest capital investment in a GTL plant and the unit with the highest energy needs. For current designs the capacity has been limited by the size of the main air compressor and the limitations in design of the cold box fractionation column. There are three major technical challenges associated with the design of the ASU: 1. The compressor sizes. 2. The compressor drive type (type and arrangement). 3. The cooling arrangements. A 5,000 tpd oxygen plant equivalent to 25,000+ bpd GTL requires approximately 700,000 Nm3/h of air. Although compressor manufacturers are confident of being able to design and manufacture these large compressors, the long term reliability of the ASU with these large compressors remains to be proven. Typically ASU air compressor(s) would require a shaft power of between 70 to 90 MW. Selecting the driver whether it is steam turbine, gas turbine, electric motor or a combination of these is challenging and beyond the current experience levels in ASU applications but there is experience in other process sectors such as LNG production to draw on.

Air Separation Unit Driver Concepts A standard configuration using electric drives for the main air compressor (MAC) and the booster air compressor (BAC) is typically used on current large-scale tonnage oxygen plants. In a GTL application this large air compressor train on an ASU of 5,000 tpd oxygen capacity would require a shaft power between 70 to 90 MW. The key decision is that the selection of the driver should also be integrated into the overall steam and power balance of the complex. There is more than one possible steam turbine driver configuration for an ASU. The final selection of a steam turbine driven ASU will depend upon the quality and availability of the steam and the overall steam and power concepts for the complex. As an alternative to electric motor drives or steam turbines, it is possible to use open cycle gas turbines. On first look this would appear more attractive than steam turbine drivers as the cycle efficiency would be higher. However, availability is a major consideration for GT drivers as they require regular planned shutdown for maintenance and inspection. Further variations are possible. An alternative driver configuration could use a GT driver with heat recovery steam generation (HRSG) where steam generated in the HRSG would be used to drive the BAC. The steam turbine would also be used for starting the GT and if necessary as a helper driver. The overall power cycle efficiency would be further improved. However, this is not the whole story as things are not what they seem. The key challenge is the integration of the ASU driver loads into the overall utility and power balance of the GTL complex utilising the principles of internal energy integration described above.

Technical Challenges in the Syngas Generation Area Currently, the use of ATR technology to generate syngas provides a best fit in terms of H2:CO ratio and high GTL train capacity. A train size based on 5,000 tpd of oxygen would produce about 12,000 tpd of syngas, enough for about 25,000 bpd of GTL product. The syngas unit is very important in determining the thermal and carbon efficiencies of the GTL process. It is also the second-most capital- intensive area after the ASU. Possible process scheme enhancements include increasing the temperature of natural gas and oxygen to the ATR. This will reduce the oxygen consumption and increase the reactor capacity. Similarly a further increase in capacity can be gained by reduction of steam to carbon ratio. However high temperatures and lower steam to carbon ratio lead to further challenges in burner and reactor design and in the selection of material for the downstream heat recovery equipment where metal dusting could be a problem. Heat recovery from the syngas is currently achieved by generating steam. The process changes above will reduce the steam production which will lead to re-evaluation of the steam and power balances within the GTL complex. F-T Synthesis Technical Challenges Sasols slurry bed reactor was developed to achieve a high GTL train capacity which currently stands at around 17,000 bpd for the Oryx GTL project. Improved catalyst activity would lower the required amount of catalyst/barrel and increase the reactor output for a fixed size of reactor. However this would lead to a higher reaction intensity and impact the hydrodynamics of the slurry regime in the reactor. The highly exothermic reaction leads to challenges in the design of the heat removal system. Due to the higher flows the gas distribution, catalyst disengagement and product separation will also present challenges in

reactor design. Slurry bed reactors are already large and further increase in reactors size may be limited by capabilities in fabrication, manufacturing and transportation logistics. A more detailed description of some of the scale-up considerations that have to be faced in designing a reactor for the FT synthesis process are provided in (1), which describes the development programme of the Sasol Advanced Synthol reactor which is 10.7m in diameter and has a capacity of 20,000 bbl/day of FT liquids and came into service in 1998. The knowledge and experience gained during this project are directly applicable to Sasols Slurry Phase Distillate process for GTL production. Technical Challenges - Product Work-up Area The product work-up (PWU) processing step utilises hydroprocessing technology. Based on experiences in refinery operations hydroprocessing of the FT synthesis products should not present any major hurdles. However, there are gains to be made in the improving catalyst selectivity to produce a higher diesel fraction. Capacities of 80,000 bpd in a single train are proven in the refining industry, thus allowing a large-scale GTL plant to have a single train PWU unit. Technical Challenges in the Utilities Area The paper previously discussed the challenge of Internal Energy Integration, i.e. matching the large amount of heat energy available in the syngas and FT Units to the utility and power demands. It is one of the challenges for the utility system to efficiently recover and utilise this energy within the complex in the plant areas shown in Figure 3.

Air Natural Gas Air Separation Hydrogen O2 CO Syngas Generation H2 FischerTropsch

(CH2)

LPG Product Upgrade Naphtha Kero/Diesel

Utilities Power/Heat Recovery

SMI- GTL Conference

Hydrogen

Figure 3- Utilities Integration Increased single train capacity involves larger utility systems especially for steam and power. These are challenging to design.

The utilities are well integrated into the process and as the individual train sizes increases the magnitude of potential swings in utility demand and generation also increase. Hence the interdependency of utilities across the units needs to be re-examined for maintaining the reliability of the GTL complex. Power generation provisions need to cater for normal, abnormal, upset and trip conditions as well as start up and shutdown. Dynamic simulation of the process and core utilities systems is used to assess the facility operability over a wide range of realistic operating scenarios. The start-up requirements increase and become more complex with increase in unit and train capacities. The challenge is to reduce both the size of the start-up facilities and the start-up duration.

Conclusions The first generation of GTL projects are coming into production. Future GTL projects are going to be at a larger scale. The technical challenges facing these future large-scale GTL projects are significant and varied. However lessons learnt and experiences from current project design and development will lead to solutions that will improve capex, efficiency and reliability. Economies of scale are achievable by fitting the individual unit capacities to the limits of scale thus arriving at optimum process and utility line-ups. Maintaining an efficiently integrated process maximising the use of the available Internal Energy will remain key. As with any new application, process integration and optimisation is needed to improve cost effective solutions. Utilities systems in such an integrated process line-up need to be configured effectively yet still provide flexibility for start up conditions. It is a feature of all processes involving synthesis gas generation that a major portion of the motive power utility is generated through energy recovered from the process and this is not available prior to plant start-up. These issues need to be considered and resolved. Foster Wheeler has assisted Sasol over the past decade as we have worked together to create optimal solutions and make large-scale GTL facilities a reality.

Reference: 1. Petroleum Technology Quarterly, Spring 1999 issue, pages113-119.