See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320596793

Carbon Footprint Reduction Strategies Select-Specialist Front-end

Division of WorleyParsons

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 33

3 authors, including:

Arif Habibullah
Specialized Consulting Services
23 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mega Turboexpander Plant Design View project

STRATEGIES FOR LNG PROJECT DEVELOPMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arif Habibullah on 24 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Carbon Footprint Reduction Strategies

Presented by:

Arif Habibullah, VP Select

Mahin Rameshni, Senior technical Director

WorleyParsons Group,
Monrovia, California, USA

Select – Specialist Front-end Division of WorleyParsons

GASTECH 2009
May 2009 Abu Dhabi, UAE
 Introduction

 Pending Carbon Tax Legislation is driving CCS activity in

the US

 Vast differences in Strategies for carbon footprint

depending on:
 Type of facility
 Local regulations
 Corporate philosophy towards GHG
 Investment costs

 Overview of Strategies for Power Plants, Refineries and

LNG Plants with Case Studies
2
2
 Outline

Power Generation
 Cost of carbon capture

LNG Plants
 Increase in efficiency

Refineries
 Potential cost savings
due to CO2 credits

Summary & Closing

– Q&A

3
 Post- vs Pre-Combustion

4
4
 Pre-combustion Case study

Acid Gas (predominantly

CO2)

Combined Cycle
Acid Gas Removal Power Generation Electricity
Reforming/ Shift Reactor (AGR)
Gasification
Hydrocarbon
Feedstock

Pre-combustion has a few advantages:

CO2 is not yet diluted by air
CO2 stream at higher pressure
Can use physical solvents
BUT, unproven whether it is preferable over usual post combustion capture
in the case of natural gas.

5
5
 Case Study

6
6
 Case cost summary

Table 1-Preliminary Utility Demand Summary

Case Utility Unit Quantity

Pre- Oxygen to ATR MMscfd 140
combustion ton/d 1 5,900
Air to ASU MMscfd 580
N2 to Gas Turbines MMscfd 204
Make-up Water gpm 3 802
Cooling Medium gpm 93,600
Steam Production 2 3.14
lb/day
million

Table 2-Case cost summary

P50
Case Equipment Item Cost,
$M
Pretreatment (Flexsorb Unit) 42.9
Auto Thermal Reformer (ATR) 493.2
Air Separation Unit (ASU) 664.0
Shift Reactor 338.4
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) 511.6
Pre-Combustion
Acid Gas Dehydration 50.2
Acid Gas Compression 180.9
1,338.
Combined Cycle Power Plant
2
TOTAL 3,619

7
7
Table 3- Operations Manpower Estimate

O&M Estimate

Item Number Shifts Total

Operations Support
Operational Team Leader (OTL) 1 2 2
Supervision 4 2 8
CC Power Plant 8 2 16
Reforming/Gasification Plant 8 2 16
Infrastructure (i.e. pipelines, power transmission
etc) Not Included 0

Operations Subtotal 21 42
Maintenance Support
Maintenance Team Leader (MTL) 1 2 2
Plant 8 2 16
Maintenance Subtotal 9 18
Engineering Support
Facility engineers (E,M,P) 4 1 4
Planner/scheduler 1 1 1
Engineering Subtotal 5 5
Total Manning 65
Total Full Time Employees (FTE) (based on 24hr
day) 32.5

Fixed Opex $62.6M

Consumables* $12.6M
Maintenance/Materials (20% of fixed Opex) $12.5M
Total Opex $87.7M

8
8
 Cost of Carbon Capture

Item Unit Quantity

Estimated Natural Gas Feed MMscfd 340

T/day 12,700
Estimated CO2 Output
T/year ~ 4.8 million

CO2 Cost 1, 2 $/T ~ 225

CO2 Cost for H2 fed Combined Cycle Power Plant

Notes
•CO2 cost based on a combined cycle power plant fed with H2 made from natural gas. Sequestration and reforming/gasification are included.
Plant location is North Slope, Alaska
•Plant CAPEX = $3.6 billion. Plant OPEX = $87.7 million/year. Discount rate assumed is 10% with CAPEX amortized over 25 years.

9
9
 LNG Strategies

 CO2 emissions for typical LNG plant

 Focus is onshore facility

Breakdown of CO2 tons/yr

Shipping 12%
Offshore 3%
Regas 7%

Onshore 78%

10
10
 Centralized Power Plant

Higher plant efficiency reduces carbon footprint

 The larger and more efficient GTs in a centralized

power plant can increase overall efficiency by 5-10%.
 Incremental LNG production up to 0.5%, depending
on project specific conditions.
 Higher production efficiency (i.e. more LNG
production)
 Higher thermal efficiency
 Lower CO2 emissions
 Shorter delivery schedule of motors vs GTs reduces
overall schedule
 Motors are better suited for a modular designs, hence
lower installed cost
 CAPEX is higher, net increase in NPV due to the
higher availability, and a shorter project schedule.

11
 Aeroderivatives

Table 1 - Compressor Driver Options

Relative
ISO Power Efficiency Speed Weight
Type CO2
MW % RPM kg
Emissions
Frame 5 32.5 29.4 1.0 4,670 110,000
Frame 7 87.3 33.1 0.93 3,600 121,000
Frame 9 130.0 34.6 0.87 3,000 217,500
Electric Motors* 65.0 - - Variable -
Aeroderivatives 43.9 41.9 0.71 3,600 31,000
* Higher Availability

12
 Driver Selection

Aeroderivatives as drivers

Higher efficiency of aero-derivatives corresponds to >3%

increase in overall plant efficiency
LM6000
Reduction in fuel reduces CO2 emissions
If the gas is pipeline or otherwise constrained there is a clear
benefit for higher efficiency GTs (any fuel savings add to LNG
production)
 aero-derivatives have 1/3rd the weight and 1/4 the footprint
of an industrial Gas Turbine
Higher plant availability change out a complete GT within 7EA
48hrs vs 15days for industrial GTs
CO2 emissions for various LNG projects: 0.25-0.37
tpaCO2/ton LNG have been reported

13
9E
 Flaring Reduction

Reduce emissions

Pending carbon tax and higher value of fuel emphasizes monetary impact
of flaring

Design the facility for 2:1 or higher turndown to minimize flaring

 Incorporate sufficiently high % of fuel-from-feed in the fuel balance to

improve control and trimming of fuel to maintain plant fuel balance
(reduce flaring)

Design the fuel gas compressor with a good margin to allow for future
increase in end flash gas production (as throughput increases) to avoid
flaring excess fuel gas

Recycle flared gas to plant front end (e.g. collect derime gas & recycle to
dehydration unit inlet). Also recycle gas during pre-cool down instead of
flaring.

14
 Flaring Reduction

Reduced flaring increases plant availability

 Consider increasing design pressure of C3 refrigeration compressor

(often the controlling case for flare sizing) to reduce flare size

Consider routing streams normally going to flare, where possible, to fuel

systems

 Upgrade specs to include double isolation on all flare connections to

minimize leak losses (including 150# systems which normally have single
isolation)

 Critical control valves fitted with isolation to allow for removal of

malfunctioning valve without purging entire unit

 If driver HP is available, consider a full pressure restart/or partial

depressurization for faster restart of the liquefaction plant after a trip.
(8hrs to 30m minutes)

15
 Refinery Strategies

Fuel Gas
LPG

Gas Processing & Alkylation Unit

Treating 40,000 BPSD
0 155
Naphtha HDS CCR Unit
80,000 BPSD 57,000 Gasoline
Crude 29 334
LPG, Naphtha &
Jet Fuel
Treating Units 0
Crude Unit Distillate HDS FCC Unit Kerosene
207,000 BPSD 22,000 BPSD 100,000 BPSD Jet Fuel
262 12 836 Diesel Fuel
Aromatics Hydrodealkylation
22,500 BPSD Unit
0 Benzene
6,300 BPSD 64
Diesel HDS LS Diesel
16,000 BPSD
22
Vacuum Unit Delayed Coker
90, 000 BPSD Coke
30,000 BPSD
71 75

CO2 KTons/Year emitted from unit based on thermal energy usage

16
16
 Refinery Strategies

17
17
 Refinery CO2 Emissions

Energy Consumption Categories CO2 EMISSIONS

1. Thermal Energy Consumption CO2 EMISSIONS

GRID
 Fired heaters FUEL POWER PLANT
POWER

 Incinerators
 Boilers
 Coke burn in Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
 Other CRUDE
REFINERY PRODUCTS
FEED

2. Electrical Energy Consumption

 Motors NATURAL
GAS
 Lighting
 Power supply to instrumentation
 Other

18
18 24-Oct-17
 Energy
Consumption

 Case Study- 130,000bpsd

TOTAL ENERGY
ELECTRICAL ENERGY
REFINERY CAPACITY THERMAL ENERGY (1) AS % OF
(2)
CAPACITY
BPSD FOEBPD MMBTU/HR FOEBPD MWe %
A 120,000 7,200 1815 1,300 32.8 7.1
B 160,080 6,600 1664 1,760 44.4 5.2
C 98,080 8,480 2138 1,510 38.1 10.2
D 140,000 9,560 2410 1,630 41.1 8
Nominal Average 130,000 8,000 2017 1,550 39.1
Percent of Total Energy 84% 16% 100%

* Andrawis, H, et al, “Energy Conservation Improves Refinery Margins”, 2001 NPRA Annual Meeting, March 18-20, 2001

19
19 24-Oct-17
 CO2 Emissions Reduction

CO2 Emissions Resulting from Nominal Refinery Energy Usage*

ENERGY CONSUMPTION CO2 EMISSION FACTORS CO2 EMISSIONS

UOM UOM Metric tons/day

THERMAL ENERGY 2,017 MMBtu/hr 0.05 metric tons CO2/MMBtu 2,420

ELECTRICAL ENERGY 39.1 MW 7.12E-04 metric tons CO2/KwH 668

TOTAL 3,088

A 10% energy reduction = 310 TPD CO2 emissions reduction

* Equivalent CO2 emission factors from USEPA, www.epa.gov/cleanenerg/energy-resources/refs.html

20
20 24-Oct-17
 Potential savings due to CO2 credits

POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS - POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS -

10% THERMAL ENERGY REDUCTION 30% THERMAL ENERGY REDUCTION

25 70

60
Cost Savings, MM$/year

Cost Savings, MM$/year

20
50
15 $ 6 MMBtu Nat Gas $ 6 MMBtu Nat Gas
40
8 8
10 10 30 10
20
5
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
CO2 CREDIT ($/METRIC TON) CO2 CREDIT ($/METRIC TON)

Thermal Energy Savings Potential

from $10 MM/year to $60 MM/year

21
21 24-Oct-17
 CO2 Emissions Summary

Unit Capacity CO2, K CO2, K

Tons/Year Tons/MBBL
Atm Distillation 207,000 308 1.49
Vacuum 90,000 88 0.98
Naphtha HDS 86,000 34 0.40
Jet/Kero HDS 22,000 14 0.64
Diesel HDS 16,000 26 1.62
CCR 57,000 393 6.89
FCC 106,000 880 8.30
Delayed Coker 30,000 88 2.93
Alkylation 40,000 182 4.55
Hydrodealkylation 6,400 75 11.72
Total 207,000 2,088 10.09

22
10/24/20 22
17
 Summary

Carbon footprint reduction strategies for various facilities compared:

 Power Plants
– The overall cost of capturing CO2 from natural gas via pre-combustion is in the order of 225 USD/T for
the ANS.

 LNG Plants
– The larger and more efficient GTs in a centralized power plant can increase overall efficiency by 5-10%.
– Incremental LNG production up to 0.5%, depending on project specific conditions.
– higher efficiency of aero-derivatives corresponds to >3% increase in overall plant efficiency

 Refineries
– Crude, Reformer and FCC are best targets for CO2 reduction program.
– For a nominal (130,000 bpd) refinery significant savings from fuel, power and CO2-emission reductions
are possible
– Savings potential from $10 to $60 MM/year are possible

23
23 24-Oct-17
 Q&A

Questions & Answers

24
View publication stats