Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Configurations and Methods to Improve NGL Recovery

Ahmad Shariati 1 , Hamidreza Etaei 2 , Jahanshir Jahedpoor 3

Abstract
Several different methods are directed to improve the efficiency and economy of
processes for the recovery of natural gas liquids (NGL) from a gas feed, e.g., raw
natural gas or a refinery or petrochemical plant gas stream [1]. These methods may
be employed with most, if not all, conventional separation methods using a
distillation tower, e.g., a demethanizer or deethanizer column. Different processes
for the recovery of propane and heavier hydrocarbon components from a
hydrocarbon gas steam explained in the patents [1, 2, 3, 4, and 5]. It is desired to
have a process, which is capable of recovering propane and heavier hydrocarbon
components from a gas steam in which only a minor amount of propane is lost to the
residue gas while at the same time rejecting essentially all of the ethane. In this
1

-To home correspondence should be addressed. Petroleum university of technology


Tel:+986115552709;fax:+986115552709, Email address: shariati@put.ac.ir

2
3

- National Iranian Petrochemical Company


- National Iranian South Oil Company

1
www.petroman.ir

paper the plant data [1] are used. The process is simulated using Hysys software.
For maximum propane recovery, the optimum split flow, power consumption for
residue gas compression, power consumption for refrigeration cycle, and a trade off
for optimum pressure are determined.
Accordingly, it is quite common to see the same basic processing scheme used for
either ethane recovery or propane recovery, with only the heat exchanger
arrangement modified to accommodate the different operating temperatures within
the process.
Keyword: Propane Recovery, Refrigerant cycle, Turbo expander

Introduction
In recent years the fluctuations in both the demand for ethane as a liquid product and in
the price of natural gas has created periods in which ethane was more valuable as a
constituent of the residue gas streams from gas processing plants [1, 2].This has resulted
in the desire for gas processing facilities to maximize propane and heavier hydrocarbon
recovery while, at the same time, maximizing the rejection of ethane into the residue gas
stream. Although many variations of the turbo- expander process have been used in the
past for propane recovery, they have usually been limited to propane recoveries in the
mid-eighty percent to lower ninety percent range without excessive horsepower
requirements for residue compression and/or external refrigeration[1].Although propane
recoveries can be improved somewhat by allowing some of the ethane to be recovered in
the liquid product, usually a significant percentage of the inlet ethane must leave in the
liquid product to provide a small improvement in propane recovery. It is, therefore,
desirable to have a process which is capable of recovering propane and heavier
components from a gas stream in which only a minor amount of propane is lost to the
residue gas while at the same time rejecting essentially all of the ethane.
The cryogenic expansion process is preferred for the separation of propane and heavier
hydrocarbons from natural gas streams. It provides maximum simplicity, ease of start-up,
operating flexibility, good efficiency and good reliability. In fact, it is quite common to
see the same basic processing scheme used for either ethane recovery or propane

2
www.petroman.ir

recovery, with only the heat exchanger arrangement modified to accommodate the
different operating temperatures within the process.

Process Description:
In a typical cryogenic expansion process, the feed gas under pressure is cooled in one or
more heat exchangers by cold streams from other parts of the process and/or use of
external sources of refrigeration such as a propane compression-refrigeration system. The
cooled feed is then expanded to a lower pressure and fed to a distillation column which
separates the desired product (as a bottom liquid product) from the residue gas which
discharged as column overhead vapor. It is cooled the expansion valve which provides
the cryogenic temperatures required to achieve the desired product recoveries. As the
feed gas is cooled, liquids may be condensed, depending on the richness of the gas, and
these liquids are typically collected in one or more separators. The liquids are then
flashed to a lower pressure which results in further cooling and partial vaporization. The
expanded liquid stream(s) may then flow directly to the distillation column (deethanizer)
or may be used to provide cooling to the feed gas before flowing to the column.
If the feed gas is not totally condensed (usually it is not), the vapor remaining after
cooling, can be split into two or more parts. One portion of the vapor is passed through a
work expansion machine or engine, and expansion valve, to a lower pressure. This results
in further cooling of the gas and the formation of additional liquids. This stream then
flows to the distillation column at mid-column feed position. The other portion of the
vapor is cooled to substantial condensation by heat exchange with other process streams,
e.g. the cold distillation column overhead. This substantially condensed stream is then
expanded through an appropriate expansion device, typically an expansion valve. This
results in cooling and partial vaporization of the stream. This stream, usually at a
temperature below -120 F., is supplied as a top feed to the column. The vapor portion of
this top feed is typically combined with the vapor rising from the column form the
residue gas stream. Alternatively, the cooled and expanded stream may be supplied to a
separator to provide vapor and liquid streams. The vapor is combined with the column
overhead and the liquid is supplied to the column as a top column feed. In the ideal
operation of such a separation process, the residue gas leaving the process will contain

3
www.petroman.ir

substantially all of the methane and C2 components found in the feed gas and essentially
none of the C3 components and heavier hydrocarbon components. The bottom product
leaving the deethanizer will contain substantially all of the C3 components and heavier
components and essentially no C2 components and lighter components.

Figure1: schematic of process flow diagram

Summary and Results


The table 1, shows the feed composition, residual gas and NGL composition from the
plant data [1, 5].Hysys software is used to simulate the process for maximum propane
recovery. The modified Peng-Robinson is used as equation of state.

Table1: Mass flow rate of composition in feed gas and NGL product and Residual gas
Mass flow rate of component in Feed gas and NGL product and Residual gas(Kg/h)
Feed
Residual gas
NGL
Component
Composition(kg/h)
Composition(kg/h)
composition(kg/h)
38788.89703
38788.1507
0.000214759
CH4
6057.247687
6001.439919
55.50161557
C2H6
3926.12208
1.843080529
3924.929585
C3H8
549.8436206
9.3556E-05
549.8435113
I-C4H10
1811.249574
2.01685E-05
1811.249542
N-C4H10
381.4176069
1.76894E-09
381.4176068
I-C5H12
481.7906613
3.6992E-10
481.7906613
N-C5H12
287.7278758
8.05526E-18
287.7278758
N-C6H14
Temperature(C)
Pressure(Pisa)
Flow rate

48.89
935
55.5(MMSCFD)

-67.94
345
52.55(MMSCFD)

4
www.petroman.ir

85.6
350
2083(bbl/day)

Table 2, shows the recovery components both in top and bottom of the column. 99.97
percent of propane is recovered from top of the tower and only 0.03 percent is lost to the
residue gas stream. Approximately all of methane and ethane are rejected to residue gas
which has high heating value. In this cryogenics process a three stage refrigerant and a
turbo expander is used. It is also possible to recover some of ethane from the top of tower
with changing the operating condition of tower.

Tabel2: Recovery Component in Top and Bottom Product


Recovery Components in Top and Bottom Product
component
NGL Product
Residual gas
C1
5.5366E-07
99.99807592
C2
0.916284399
99.07866128
C3
99.96962665
0.046944045
iC4
99.99998012
1.7015E-05
NC4
100
0
iC5
100
0
NC5
100
0
NC6
100
0

In the table 3, total energy consumed consisting the energy required for residue gas
compression, three stage propane compression and reboiler duty are shown. It shows that,
high propane recovery may be achieved without in increasing energy consumption. In the
next part, the flow between the turbo expander and expansion valve was varied, to find
the least work done to compress the gas.
Table 3: Energy Consumption in residual gas and refrigerant compressor and reboiler duty
Energy Consumption in residual gas and Refrigerant compressorreboiler duty

Residual gas compression(hp)


First stage propane compression(hp)
Second stage propane compression(hp)
Third stage propane compression(hp)
Reboiler Duty(hp)
Total Refrigerant(Propane) Compression (hp)

5
www.petroman.ir

1283
184
268.4
356.1
2662
808.5

In figure 2, the result of such variation is shown. It is clear that the flow must be splited
in two steams. 29 percent of flow passes the expansion valve and the other 71 percent
feeds to turbo expander for minimum work for gas compression. Increasing the flow of
expansion valve causes increas to work done for gas compression because of, recovery
work done by turbo expander is decreased.

Power(hp)

Residual gas compression vs. split flow ratio


1290
1289
1288
1287
1286
1285
1284
1283
1282
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Split ratio

Figure2: Residual gas Compression versus split flow ratio

In figure 3, the reboiler duty versus split flow ratio is shown. Increasing the flow in
expansion valve will increase the reboiler duty.

Reboiler Duty vs. split flow ratio

Duty(MMBtu/hr)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Split ratio
Figure3: Reboiler energy consumption versus split ratio

6
www.petroman.ir

0.8

Figure 4, Shows that the mole flow of propane in NGL product versus split ratio. It is
apparent that increasing the flow to expansion valve more than 29% of total flow, there

Molar Flow(kgmole/hr)

would be no effect in propane recovery.


Molar flow of propane in NGL product vs. split flow
ratio
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Split ratio
Fig4: Molar flow of Propane in NGL product versus split flow ratio

Figure5 shows that the mole flow of ethane in residual gas product versus split ratio. It is
apparent that increasing the flow to expansion valve more than 29% of total flow, there
would be no effect in ethane recovery.

Ethan rej in top (lbm/hr)

Mole flow of ethan in top of tower


441
440
439
438
437
436
435
434
433
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Split flow(Lean Ref/feed to expander)

Figure5: Ethan rejection in top of tower versus split flow

7
www.petroman.ir

0.5

In figure 6, the effects of column pressure and the work done for gas compression are
depicted. Increasing the tower pressure increases the amount of ethane in bottom of the
column. In high column pressure, there is lighter hydrocarbon dissolved in heavier
hydrocarbons. The energy consumed in reboiler will increase to separate light
hydrocarbon from liquid gas. The benefit of high pressure vessel is that the energy
consumption for gas compression of top product is low. In fact there should be a trade off
for column pressure.
Figure 5, shows that the optimum pressure for low energy consumption in the top of the
column and low reboiler duty is about 350 psia.

6000

Power(hp)

4500

3000

1500

0
200

300

400

500

P(psi)

Figure6: Tower pressure versus compression work required

8
www.petroman.ir

600

Conclusion
One NGL plant in operation is studied [1, 5] by means of simulation of process. The
effects of different parameters such as split ratio, power consumption for residue gas
compression, power consumption for refrigeration cycle and optimum pressure on
propane recovery were elucidated. A 29 to 71 percent split ratio gives the highest propane
recovery while it almost rejects all of the ethane to flue gas. A 350 psia column pressure
is an optimum pressure for low boiler duty and low energy consumption for gas
compression. The simulation results yield the best operating conditions for different
constraint of the plant to have an economical running process.

References
1-U.S patent 4854955, May 17, 1988, Roy E. Campbell, John D. Wilkinson, Hank M. Hudson
2-U.S patent 4711651, Dec 19, 1986, Shanmuk Sharma, Donnie K. Hill, Charles A. Durr
3-U.S patent 4657571, Luigi Gazzi,
4-U.S patent 4617039, Loren L. Buck, Oct 14, 1986
5-U.S patent 4596588, G. Dennis Cook, Jun 24, 1986
5-Engineering Data book (GPSA).

9
www.petroman.ir

S-ar putea să vă placă și