NGL Recovery Processes

Cryogenic low temp distillation process

In this process, the heavy hydrocarbons in the feed gas are removed using
compression and cooling method. At first, the feed is flashed in a flash chamber. The
vapour then undergoes a compression and then further cooled. The compression
happens in high pressure while the cooling method is fulfilled using external
refrigeration cycle or expansion of the products through a turbo-expander.
The next step involves a distillation column. Distillation column used in this process
has many stages due to the low temperature in the process. Distillation column is used
to separate methane from the natural gas liquids. The methane is processed further
before it is being commercially sold.

Turbo expander or ISS

This process is regarded as the simplest and earliest forms of NGL recovery. The
turbo expander represents a centrifugal flow axial turbine (expander shaft) where high
pressure gas is expanded to produce work (cooling effect)(Park et al, 2014). This
process is an isentropic process thats work done highly depends on the pressure of
the gas. This process has a maximum ethane recovery of 80%. The cold separator of
this plant typically operates somewhere between -200C to -350C and these
temperatures highly depend on the composition of the gas and the required recovery
of ethane. The tops of the demethanizer operate at a range between -800C and -1100C
while the bottom operates between 00C and -200C (Kidnay et al, 2011).

Some of the limitation towards the design and operation include; the stability of the
process may be at harm due to the critical temperature and pressure of the mixture
+
affecting the cold separator, occurrence of CO2 solidification and for a higher C 2
recovery more compression is required.

The outcome of turbo expander is at a very low temperature hence a partial

liquefaction of the gas is to be expected.

Figure: The figure on the left represents a turboexpander from a cutaway view, while
the figure on the right represents an example of a turboexpander in a plant with its
compressor at the side (Kidnay et al, 2011).

PFD Design
There are several designs in cryogenic low temperature distillation process. The
original design is called the ISS Process. This process is the base case in cryogenic
separation.

As described in the PFD above, the separation begins when stream 12 goes into a
flash chamber (V-100). In the flash chamber, the mixture is flashed into stream 13
which consists of vapour and stream 14 that consists of liquid. Stream 13 goes into the
turbo-expander (K-100) where refrigeration process happened. The outcome of this

process is stream 16. The energy that is produced from refrigerating the vapour is
collected in the turbo-expander. This energy is converted to mechanical energy to run
the shaft to booster compressor (K-101).
As for stream 14, it undergoes expansion in expansion valve (VLV-100) to increase
the pressure so that it matches the tower pressure. The outcome of this process is
stream 15.
Stream 15 and 16 is then fed into the demethanizer column alongside with some
recycled stream (PA1 and PA2). In the demethanizer column, methane is stripped
from the stream as a gas and vent out as stream 17. The steam in stream 17 is used to
cool stream 8 then partially compressed in K-101 before it is sent to the sale gas
recompression unit (Getu, 2013).

Process Improvements
There are several alternatives available for this process, such as Gas sub-cooled
process (GSP), cold residue gas-recycle (CRR), recycle split-vapor (RSV), Enhanced
NGL recovery process (IPSI-1), and Internal refrigeration for enhanced NGL recovery
process (IPSI-2) that were developed to overcome these and other limitations (Getu,
2013) . Each of these processes has unique characteristics that will be explained
below.

Gas sub-cooled process (GSP)

The main difference in this process compared to the ISS is that there is an additional
flash chamber (V-101) after the first flash chamber (V-100) that separates the vapour
and liquid of the feed. The liquid outcome stream of the additional flash chamber
which is stream 18 enters from the top while the outcome from the turbo-expander
(K-100) enters from the middle of the demethanizer column. The additional flash
chamber (V-100) results in higher methane purity obtained. Hence, this process allows
the demethanizer to reduce ethane loses (Kidnay et al, 2011).
The columns top temperature highly affects the amount of ethane recovery of the
column. Hence a lower temperature is required in order to lower the ethanes volatility
that results in more ethane being recovered at the bottom of the column. This can lead
to the icing of the of the column due to CO2. However, this problem can be mitigated
by using a flash drum at stream 16 that in turn warms the column and reduces the risk
of CO2 freezing.
With the introduction of a separator V-101, the GSP is allowed to reduce the
entrainment of ethane at the top of the column with the products. This allows the
ethane to be stripped before being introduced into the demethanizer clolumn (Getu et
al, 2013) . The composition of the reflux stream heavily influences the recovery levels

of the process. Hence with the improvement of the split vapour concept resulted in
more processes developed (Kidnay et al, 2011).

Figure: PFD for the GSP process (Getu et al, 2013).

Cold residue gas-recycle (CRR)

There are several differences in this process compared to the ISS Process. First, there
is an additional compressor used in this process. The additional compressor is used to
treat the vapour that comes out from the demethanizer column. Secondly, the vapour
that comes out of from the flash chamber is being split into two streams. One stream
goes straight to the turbo-expander while the other stream is mixed with the liquid
stream and then being condensed before goes into the demethanizer column.

The result in these improvements is of higher ethane purity than the GSP process due
to the addition of the split stream 18 that is used as a column top feed, which can now
recover the power of expander K-100. However, compressor K-102s horsepower
will be increased due to this addition (Getu et al, 2013). Furthermore, the addition of
the compressor relates to a higher CAPEX and OPEX (Park et al 2014). This process
can also operate at an excess of 99% propane recovery for near complete rejection of
ethane (Pitman et al, 1998).

Figure: PFD for the CRR process (Getu et al, 2013).

Recycle split-vapor (RSV)

This improvement is similar to the CRR process. The significant difference can be
with the RSV process that provides the bulk ethane recovery in the tower by using
split-vapour feed of steams 20 and 21 (Getu et al, 2013). A small portion of the
methane is refluxed from the tower and recompressed, condensed and subcooled. The
leaner methane is then flashed to the feed with the pressure of the top of the tower
without using a compressor step. This design reduces the capital cost of the plant and
overcomes the limits in recovery due to the vapour-liquid effect. As market prices
change, the process can switch between both ethane recovery and ejection.
Furthermore, this process allows the system to operate in GSP mode, at reduced
ethane recoveries the gas processor is allowed to process higher inlet volumes. This
design can accommodate higher demethanizer operating pressures in comparison to
GSP design due to having a higher tolerance to CO2 at any recovery level.

Figure: PFD for the RSV process (Getu et al, 2013).

Enhanced NGL Recovery Process (IPSI-1)

This process was introduced for the purpose of high recovery and focused on the
improvements at the bottom of the demethanizer column (T-100). This is done by
introducing pumps PA, PA1 and PA2 as well as product stream 25. With PA2 being
the most significant addition, this allows the splitting of steam 30 and 31 where
stream 31 expanded in order to be used for cooling. Stream 25 and 35 are then mixed
to form a NGL product stream. The flashed vapour stream from stream 34 is to
compressed into streams 38 and 39, these streams mainly comprise of ethane and
propane. The compressed stream 39 mixed with stream 41 after being cooled by
cooler C-101. Stream 32 is then used to cool stream 5 and is then mixed with stream
43 before entering the dementhanizer (Getu et al, 2013).

The energy requirement of the reboiler can be significantly reduced due to the
stripping gas stream PA2. This leads to the temperature of the demethanizer being
reduced allowing heat integration to become more efficient. The reduction of external
refrigeration and providing reboiler duties can be achieved due to the lowering of the
temperature of the demethanizer by allowing more feed gas into the system. In
addition, NGL recovery and separation efficiency will be increased due to the
introduced stream from PA2 (Getu et al, 2013). For an increase in capacity, more
refrigerant is to be used to compensate. In order to achieve a more flexible process,
ISPI-2 was introduced to overcome the problem of needing more refrigerants by
installing a close refrigeration loop (Park et al, 2014).

Figure: PFD for the IPS-I process (Getu et al, 2013).

Environmental Effects
This process has a bright future as no harmful material is produced. The turbineexpander process will also bring good feedback to the surroundings as no pollution
and solid waste is produced. This will also further help with global warming matters
as greenhouse gasses production can be avoided.
In addition, the turboexpander uses a non-oil based cooling lubricating fluid. This oil
is made out of nitrogen fluid that is liquefied and is regarded as safe, non-combustible
and non-corrosive. Furthermore, no residue for contamination (to surroundings and
operators) as the liquid nitrogen evaporates and returns to the atmosphere. This can
also save costs for disposal of the liquid nitrogen in comparison to the lean absorption
process that uses oil (Puavec* and Kopa, 2011).

Process Economics
In terms of process economics, this process requires a high amount of energy in
comparison to the lean absorption process. For example, the demethanizer reboiler
and salesgas compressor are the highest consuming units in the process. While there
are no materials required by the process except for the feed gas, most of the
operations cost comes from the energy required for the process to operate. This still
gives us a rough idea on which technology provides a better cost on the long run.

Graph of energy consumed by demethanizer reboiler against NGL produced (Getu et

al, 2013).

In order to compare the different technologies used to cryogenic low

temperature distillation processes, according to () the graph above indicates that IPSI1 uses the least energy in comparison to the other technologies. This in return saves a
significant cost on electricity due to the efficiency of the self-refrigeration system.
However the IPSI-1 system requires higher energies when dealing with rich feeds but
is still lower than the other technologies.

Graph of energy consumed by sales gas compressor against NGL produced (Getu et
al, 2013).

Furthermore, the duties for compression tend to be lower for leaner feeds. The RSV
technology requires a higher duty due to its large recovery stream that is needed for
the ethane recovery while the other technologies use similar amounts of energy for the
different quality of feeds. Hence, this factor plays a significant role while determining
which technology is more economic.

The table above shows the common parameters for the turbo-expander technology
(Getu et al, 2013).

Based on these parameters, a profitability analysis was conducted by (insert reference)

that summarizes the cost in order to forecast the profitability of the project.

Total annualized capitol cost ($)

Lean feed = 737,537
Rich feed = 837,850

Total annual operating cost ($)

Lean feed = 1,433,227
Rich feed = 4,907,276

Sales gas product revenue ($/year)

Lean feed = 64,075,454
Rich feed = 51,428,826

NGL product revenue ($/year)

Lean feed = 8,291,994

Rich feed = 26,944,069

Gross profit ($/year)

Lean feed = 70,934,221
Rich feed = 73,465,618

Net profit ($/year)

Lean feed = 49,653,955
Rich feed = 51,425,932

Payback time (year)

Lean feed = 0.015
Rich feed = 0.016

Table 1:The table above shows a comparison between turboexpander plants and
conventional plants (Bloch and Soares, 2011).

Comparison between absorption and cryogenic plants

Parameter

Absorption

Cryogenic

Temperauture

240-3000K

170K

Fuel Consumption

2-4%

1-2%

Ethane Recovery

0-35%

60-90%

Propane Recovery

50-90%

92-98%

Table 2 :EPA Multimedia Assesment of the Natural Gas Processing Industry

Table 3: Shows the amount of equipment required to operate a turboexpander plant

and a refrigeration plant of 2.5 MMscmd capacities (Bloch and Soares, 2011)

According to tables (), () and (); it is evident that from an economics perspective that
the turbo-expander process uses less energy, number of equipment and has a higher
efficiency in comparison to the refrigeration/absorption plants. This will allow the
company to save a substantial amount of costs. However the turbo-expander
technology requires a higher CAPEX and this factor must be considered.

Safety Considerations
Due to using low temperatures for the gas cooler and demethanizer
reboiler and the high pressures required for the turboexpander, safety
considerations must not be overlooked for these units (Kidnay et al, 2011).
To overcome the high pressures, pressure relief valves should be installed
at the process to ensure that the system does not become overpressurized especially when there is CO 2 icing in the columns..
Furthermore, in case of icing of the column, safety precautions should be
taken by the operators during handling. There are risks associated with

the plant in terms of fires and explosions due to the NGL. However these
are common throughout all of the processes suggested and can be
overcome with flares in times of an emergency when there is a leak or loss
of containment from the pipelines. The nitrogen oil used does not pose
any threats to the operators during leaks as the nitrogen does not carry
any hazards.

Advantages and disadvantages of the turboexpander proces

Advantages

High ethane recovery

Nitrogen oil used is non-hazardous and more efficient than the oil
based lubricating fluids
The bottom of the demethanizer operates between 0 0C and -200C
and this allows for a higher recovery.
Robust rotor design can handle deposit formed by CO 2.
Environmentally friends due to no harmfull emissions emitted.

Disadvantages

Low temperature demethanizer top

Carbon dioxide icing may form
A significant amount of compression is required in order to increase
the

+
C2

The use of a turboexpander has a high CAPEX and OPEX.

Lose efficiency when feed rates are below 0.2x10 6 Nm3/d
High pressure drop required for turbine-expander

References
https://books.google.com.au/books?
id=Ro_LBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=turbine+expander+NGL+
recovery+safety+and+environment&source=bl&ots=h7WA2n4lLD&sig=n
3cgm4KF5_lK0L5lJXeiENXHnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgKahUKEwiFwvO2bTHAhVlx6YKHXOmBeU#v=onepage&q=turbine%20expander%20NGL
%20recovery%20safety%20and%20environment&f=false
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270595616_Technoeconomic_evaluation_of_a_novel_NGL_recovery_scheme_with_nine_patent
ed_schemes_for_offshore_applications

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZRY1Emx4JwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=safety+and+environment+consideration+
on+turbineexpander+process&source=bl&ots=gWl0JAtqxa&sig=9dhw8_2_u8EVExppHCbeOv
LeIBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI0auDsdC0xwIVZF2mCh37o
Qm9#v=onepage&q=safety%20and%20environment%20consideration%20on
%20turbine-expander%20process&f=false (Bloch and Soares, 2011)

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270595616_Technoeconomic_evaluation_of_a_novel_NGL_recovery_scheme_with_nine_patent
ed_schemes_for_offshore_applications (Park et al, 2014)
https://books.google.com.au/books?
id=PiEtBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=recycle+split+vapor+proc
ess&source=bl&ots=sBvMH7UdmP&sig=PU59Tq3j42WmUa7gBBfdKQu1Cl
c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCWoVChMIj8j85quyxwIVgS6mCh1k4QB
K#v=onepage&q=turboexpander&f=false
http://www.ou.edu/class/che-design/che5480-07/Next%20Generation
%20NGL-LPG(Hudson%20et%20al)-98.pdf (Pitman et al, 1998)
,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026387621300035X#
(Getu et al, 2013)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270595616_Technoeconomic_evaluation_of_a_novel_NGL_recovery_scheme_with_nine_patent
ed_schemes_for_offshore_applications (Park et al, 2014
http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2011/09/01_2010_249_Pusavec_04.pdf
(Puavec and Kopa, 2011)

https://books.google.com.au/books?
id=Ro_LBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=turbine+expander+NGL+
recovery+safety+and+environment&source=bl&ots=h7WA2n4lLD&sig=n
3cgm4KF5_lK0L5lJXeiENXHnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgKahUKEwiFwvO2bTHAhVlx6YKHXOmBeU#v=onepage&q=CRR&f=false (Kidnay et al,
2011)
https://books.google.com.au/books?
id=PiEtBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=recycle+split+vapor+proc
ess&source=bl&ots=sBvMH7UdmP&sig=PU59Tq3j42WmUa7gBBfdKQu1Cl
c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCWoVChMIj8j85quyxwIVgS6mCh1k4QB
K#v=onepage&q=recycle%20split%20vapor%20process&f=false