1.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Basis Theory
Processes of a typical natural gas plant
Treatment steps in a gas plant are determined primarily by the mode of
transportation to end users through pipelines or shipping overseas as
liquefied natural gas (LNG). Technologies for the final polishing step
depend on the application of the end user as fuel or to produce chemicals.
Figure 1 provides an overview of various processing units within a gas
plant.
Gas plant consists of the following processing steps:
A. Receiver input:
Gas well passes through the first input receiver, consisting of a collector
slugs to remove condensed water, liquids hydrocarbons and solids from
the gas. Most gas plants also have a coalescing filter to remove the
surfactants gas food, which can cause problems for downstream units.
B. Gas removal unit acids (AGRU):
Here H2S and CO2 are removed from the raw gas as H2S and CO2
and form a weak corrosive acid in the presence of water that can
damage the piping and equipment to the carbon steel. H2S is a very
toxic gas while CO2 is not flammable, therefore, both are undesirable in
large quantities in gas sales. deep CO2 removal is required, typically
below 50 ppm, to avoid the formation of solid CO2 for LNG production
primarily, but also for other cooling passages in the gas plant.
C. Sulfur recovery unit (SRU) and processing unit tail gases (TGTU):
If H2S is present, the following processing options are available:
 Incineration and vented to atmosphere or SO2 capture with a
caustic scrubber.
 This option only be considered if the amount of sulfur is less
than 2 t / d H2S concentration in the acid gas AGRU is less than
5000 ppm.
 Treatment with H2S scavengers: generally feasible when
removed less than 500 kg per day of sulfur, which is equivalent
to ppm levels of H2S in the raw gas.
 Conversion to elemental sulfur through a liquid redox process or
biological process Thiopaq to remove up to about 50 t / d sulfur.
 Recovery of pure elemental sulfur by the Claus process sulfur
modified for quantities higher than 10 t / d.
  Compression and reinjection acid gases in a subterranean
formation suitable as a disposal method. This option is only
economical for specific cases.
D. Dehydration and removal mercaptan:
The treated gas from the AGRU is saturated with water. Glycol units are
typically used to achieve the specification from pipeline necessary.
Alternatively, the molecular sieves are used in cases where the
cryogenic processes recover C2 + fraction of the inlet gas, if nitrogen
rejection is required, or if the natural gas product is sent to an LNG
plant. The water must be removed to less than 0.1 ppmv to prevent
hydrate formation in the cryosections. Molecular sieves can also be
used for removing mercaptan. The formation of carbonyl sulfide (COS)
is an important consideration when molecular sieves are used for
dewatering in the presence of sulfur species. The COS is formed during
regeneration of the beds, and the resulting gas regeneration requires
treatment using a solvent with a high affinity for mercaptans and COS.
There may be different approaches to treating the regeneration gas
flows due to intermittent and variable compositions. If a treatment
system, mercaptans and COS are routed to the SRU for sulfur recovery.
Otherwise, the regeneration gas often ends mixed with fuel gas or
incinerator routed, depending on the emission levels of sulfur allowed.
E. Recovery from liquids from hydrocarbons:
If gas contains sufficient C2 + fractions, it can be economically feasible
to extract these fluids, which gives as a result a product that can have a
greater value than natural gas sales. Recovery of hydrocarbon liquids
may also be necessary to comply with the specifications of the heating
value of natural gas.
F. Polished natural gas:
This section covers all other processing steps needed to meet sales
specifications gas or products LNG, eg nitrogen rejection in cases
where the natural gas needs to comply with a specification of nitrogen,
generally ranging 3-4% by volume.
G. Liquid processing:
Liquids of the receiver input are conditioned to remove dissolved salts
to collect hydrate inhibitors present in the crude gas. Remove light
components stabilizes hydrocarbons receiver input. The liquid
hydrocarbon recovery may be further processed into a Train of
 fractionation of natural gas liquids (NGL), resulting fractions ethane,
propane, butane and natural gasoline.

Figure Nº1: Plant equipment natural gas typical

2.2. Frameworks

Sulfur block configuration and evaluation criteria

The following criteria are key block sulfur when natural gas specifications
are met:

 Removal of CO2 from a gas containing no H2S.

 Removing H2S from a gas containing no CO2.
 Simultaneous removal of H2S and CO2.
 Selective removal of H2S from a gas containing CO2 and H2S.

Additional factors affecting the process and the selection of the solvent are
sulfur containing impurities such as COS, CS2 and mercaptans, they can
be expected to be present in the natural gas if the H2S is well above the
level of ppm. A typical configuration for a AGRU shown in Figure 2. For
scenarios in which are present both CO2 and H2S, the possibility exists that
the H2S concentration in the acid gas recovered from the regenerator is too
low due to the high CO2 content for direct processing in the SRU. In this
case, a unit enrichment acid gas (AGE) is required to improve the quality of
the acid gas. Figure 3 shows an alignment integrated with SRU-TGTU. The
basic provision for AGRU is pretty standard, with solvent selection as key
differentiator. You may allow certain sulfur impurities slide in the AGRU and
then capture them in the dehydration step. A careful analysis during the
selection of the solvent can be achieved savings from costs considerable,
particularly in utility consumption. As such, it is strongly recommended a
thorough study of solvent selection to assess the benefits and
consequences of the available options.

The acid gas AGRU sufficient H2S is processed in the SRU. The typical
configuration uses the Claus process SRU modified thermal and catalytic
sections. The reference level achievable SRE ranges from 95% to 98%,
depending on the number of Claus reactors. SRE to improve one TGTU is
required. The minimum SRE in Europe is set to 99.5% and forms the
baseline for the evaluation of the case study. The case study also looks at
higher SRE. The TGTU common application technologies are catalytic
conversion processes, tail gas treatment amine-based recovery and flue
gas SO2.

Figure Nº2: Configuring Agru.

Catalytic conversion processes

The catalytic conversion processes using selective oxidation, as Euroclaus

and Superclaus can achieve SRE in the range of 99.0-99.6% depending on
the composition of the feed gas. The remaining 0.4 to 1.0% of the sulfur
species are incinerated and sent to the atmosphere as SO2. For higher
SRE, SO2 can be captured from the flue gas with a caustic scrubber
downstream of the incinerator. SO2 sulfate sodium form that can be treated
through the unit wastewater treatment. For large plants in remote areas, the
debugger option may not be feasible due to handling and transport of large
amounts of caustic required to capture SO2. For example, a SRU 900 t / d
daily would require approximately 30 m3 of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) at
30% by weight. A detailed analysis is recommended to investigate the best
alternatives when there is no adequate treatment facilities water available
locally. See Figure 4 for the alignment of the selective oxidation process
SRU to a gas plant.

Unit tail gas treatment amine base

If higher sulfur recoveries are required to 99.5%, units tail gas treatment
amine base is the industry standard. See Figure 5 for a typical configuration
SRU comprising two catalytic reactors with Claus tail gas treatment amine
base. Species remaining sulfur Claus reactors and hydrolyze H2S were to
hydrogenate over a catalyst in a third reactor. Cooling column, the gas is
cooled and the remaining H2S is captured in the amine absorber. From the
regenerator, the H2S is recycled back to the burner in the combustion
chamber. The treated gas is sent to the incinerator to convert any remaining
sulfur species SO2 before release into the atmosphere. A TGTU amine
base using standard MDEA regulate as solvent, 99.9% recovery to be
achieved. This corresponds to about 550-700 SRE mg Nm3 SO2 or
200,250 ppm SO2 in the flue gas to the stack, dry with 3% excess oxygen.

To achieve 150 mg / Nm3 SO2, as specified in the old WBS (corresponding

to a recovery of about 99.98%), the concentration of H2S in the treated gas
leaving the absorber must be reduced to a strict minimum, with small
amounts of COS, CS2 and mercaptans that can pass through the
hydrogenation reactor unconverted. This standard also requires high
recovery treatment of vent gas from sulfur degassing unit. Degassing
pressure allows routing of the vent gas back to the combustion chamber in
the Claus unit. Alternatively, the use of blowers or steam eductors to recycle
vent gas from atmospheric degassing back to the thermal reactor has met
with varying degrees of success.

For SRE 99.98%, the following additional features are required compared to
the sulfur recovery 99.8% or 99.9%:

 Degassing pressure for recycling sulfur vapor from the sulfur

degassing to the front end of the thermal reactor.
 Use of MDEA with acid instead of MDEA regularly. Particularly in hot
climates, amines of high performance, Flexsorb SE Plus (EMRE),
OASE Yellow (BASF) or Jefftreat Ultra (Shell / Huntsman), have
demonstrated improved performance over the speed of movement
of the amine and the work of the boiler. In colder climates, this
advantage over the acid MDEA is less pronounced.
It is important to note that, depending on the quality of the feed gas, 99.98%
SRE could not be achieved with these characteristics, and gas or other
steps may require polishing.

Recovery unit SO2 Flue Gas

Removing SO2 from the flue gas is another method to achieve sulfur
emissions low.

MECS SOLVR Cansolv and Shell are examples of this type of technology.
Such units may readily meet 150 mg / Nm3 in the gas from the stack with
the advantage of minimal impact on the investment and operating costs of
the plant. They are very effective technological options when you want to
minimize the total SO2 emissions from the plant. Other features of this type
of treatment technology combustion gases are:

 Degassing vapors and other gases containing sulfur, such as

absorbent AGE, which normally prevent the SRU can be sent to the
incinerator without losing SRE. The SO2 formed is captured in
Cansolv or Solv unit and recycled to the combustion chamber of the
Claus unit.
 The temperature of the gas burner in the Claus acid unit must
already verified that the addition of SO2 recycling reduce flame
temperature. This can hinder BTEX destruction capacity of the
burner.
 The unit produces a waste stream of dilute sulphate possibly require
effluent treatment plant for processing later.

Figure Nº3: AGE AGRU and integrated into the SRU-TGTU

 Figure Nº4: SRU TGTU selective oxidation
2. ASSUMPTIONS AND VARIABLES
3.1. General hypothesis

Determine the technical and economic feasibility of alternative technologies

considering contaminants in the feed composition in such a way as to
regulate the emissions of acid gas in a natural gas plant, as well as by
implementing the configuration optimum sulfur block the sulfur recovery a
feed gas is maximized.

2.2 Specific hypotheses

 The profitability of the project will be evaluated through economic
indicators.
 Determine decreasing gas emissions acids in natural gas plants,
which have a positive environmental impact.
 Deciding the best possible configuration of technological alternatives
to improve the recovery of sulfur.
2.3 Identification of variables
The main variables analyzed throughout this study for the feasibility of the
project are:
 Independent variables
 Feed Composition • Dependent variables
 Emission acids
 Percentage of sulfur removal efficiency (SRE)
 Technology investment costs
 2.4 Operationalization of variables

VARIABLES OPERATIONAL FLOATING INDICATOR SOURCE OF

DEFINITION RATE VERIFICATION
Compositio Are the Independent Indicates the MAGAZINE
n in food components of amount of
the feed in the components
plant process gas food.
natural
Emission These are Displays Emitted MAGAZINE
gases produced by whether gases are
physical or dependent contaminants
chemical
processes, being
responsible for
the quality of air
Percentage It measures the Dependent Effectiveness MAGAZINE
of removal percentage level removal
efficiency of effectiveness process
sulfur
Technology It measures the Dependent Evaluation of MAGAZINE
investment financial the
costs economic level in profitability of
new technologies new
technologies

3.5. Consistency Matrix

3. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Type and Design Research
The research for our case is experimental analysis, in which the
environmental impact and degradation of equipment buyers, which are
linked to the quality of products and the flue gas is observed. The quality of
these is related to processes carried out on the ground and these processes
they rely on the characteristics of the feeding.
3.2 Analysis unit
The analysis unit is known in Table 1, in which the conditions of a typical
gas feed plant European gas is seen. The treated gas will be sold as sales
gas pipeline.
 Table 1. Conditions of the inlet gas
3.3 Study Population Population:
Removal of acid gases in a gas plant.
3.4 Sample size
In the sample size should consider taking as reference processes where the
SRE are at least 99%, 99.5%, 99.99% and 99.98% recovery.
3.5 Sample selection
Sampling outflow of gas from the sulfur block.
3.6 Data collection techniques
Economic and statistical reports area of the company, reports engineers
research, surveys buyers and surrounding communities to the plant.
3.7 Analysis and interpretation of the information
Based on this diet (Table 1), it was created a case study to show the
mechanics of a feasibility study to select the optimum line technology.
Hydrocarbon recovery is not considered economically feasible since the
fraction of C2 + is only 0.2 mole%.
The nitrogen rejection total concentration of diluents (noncombustible
components) is considered unnecessary because, the lower the CO2
content of 0.5 mol%, constant be maintained at about 6 mol%. It is
concluded that there is no need to bring the specification of the treated gas
to a level suitable for the steps of the cooling process. The analysis then
leads to the gas processing scheme shown in Figure 5.
Shifting the focus to the AGRU, the feed gas contains nearly equal amounts
of H2S and CO2, COS and mercaptans also present. No need for deep
removal of CO2 in the amine unit and, therefore, must be chosen with a
solvent absorption capacity for COS and mercaptans. Examples of typical
solvents for such performance are Sulfinol-M and Flexsorb SE Hybrid.
As part of a study, the configuration of the unit was simulated by comparing
both solvents to confirm the conditions of the gas resulting treatment.
Modeling confirmed that the treated gas specification can be met without the
need for sieves Additional molecular and TEG a typical unit is sufficient for
dehydration.
As the amount of sulfur produced be about 840 t / d, the modified Claus
process is the obvious choice for the configuration of the SRU. The acid gas
AGRU to the SRU is about 51 mol% H2S and 45 mol% CO2, this
composition can be handled in a typical configuration SRU directly. TGTU
remains is to determine the technology. The main evaluation criteria are
emission specifications established by local environmental authorities. They
have been evaluated following settings:
 99.5% SRE using a process selective oxidation as flue gas
treatment.
 99.8% and 99.9% SRE MDEA regulate a TGTU amine base
 99.98% SRE MDEA acid in the TGTU. For this case study, a TGT
selective oxidation a caustic scrubber is it not considered feasible
because the gas plant is in a remote area. For this evaluation, the
unit has developed into a high-level design and TGTU different
technologies are compared according to the following evaluation
criteria: • Investment cost
 The operating cost includes all utility costs, chemicals and
replacements planned to operate the plant throughout its life.
 Net Present Value (NPV); The NPV calculation uses the total costs
and revenues for investment and 20 years of operation related to the
discount rate
 Equivalent CO2 emissions directly due to the operation of the plant
has been evaluated that CO2 emissions from manufacturing
equipment and plant construction are insignificant compared to the
CO2 emissions due to the operation of the plant. Therefore, no CO2
emissions resulting from construction are evaluated. For this case
study, it was assumed that there are no restrictions, with regard to
the plot available, available utilities and regulatory requirements that
prohibit the feasibility of the chosen configurations.
 Figure Nº5. Process scheme for case study
Case study, evaluation and discussion
If the information defined design simulations and calculations were
performed for the AGRU / SRU in TGTU different options. The results are
given and discussed below.
Investment and operating costs.
The dimensions of the main equipment are listed in Appendix A. The
elements such as columns, incinerator, degassing, etc., do not change
significantly for different scenarios SRE, because gas flows and liquid sulfur
flows differ only marginally between 99.5 % and 99.98% SRE. Appendix B,
a breakdown for the productions of utility consumption and consumption of
chemical catalyst for each configuration is provided, including unit rates. In
Table 2, the relative differences in costs between the investment and
operation options are summarized. TGTU configuration catalytic AGRU +
99.5% is indexed at 100. The investment and operation costs for the other
configurations are relative to the cost index TGTU catalytic AGRU + 99.5%.
The TGTU amine base for SRE 99.98% is relatively more expensive than
other configurations, primarily due to degassing pressure and to the larger
equipment required by the higher circulation rate and duty solvent removal
regenerator. Figure 6 provides a graphical overview of the numbers of the
cost index in Table 2 shows clearly that progress towards higher levels of
recovery increases sulfur investment costs, and tend operating costs to
increase to an even higher rate. This indicates that additional sulfur removal
becomes increasingly difficult, requiring exponentially Energy, especially
low-pressure steam (LP).
 Table 2.

Figure Nº6. Comparison of indexed investment and operating costs

Net Present Value
Input data for calculations VPN is tabulated in Appendix C. The result for
each technology is shown in Figure 7.
A positive NPV means that the project is profitable; The option with the
highest NPV is economically more attractive. The investment and operation
costs increase with increasing SRE (see Figure 6) and, therefore,
decreases the VPN. This means that the option is 99.5% economically the
most profitable. However, the sulfur recovery is primarily an environmental
requirement. Selecting recovery technology from more sulfur favorable It is
economically advantageous to the overall economic performance of the gas
plant.

Figure Nº7. VP Comparison

CONSIDERATIONS
The results and discussion presented here are only applicable to this
specific case and the assumptions used to evaluate the different
configurations in this report. If a minimum SRE of 99.5% is required, it is
very likely that processes simpler catalytic conversion outperform other
technologies with respect to the investment cost, operating cost, VPN and
CO2 equivalent emissions.
It is worth noting that improving performance is relatively small when
increased 99.9% to 99.98%, reducing SO2 emissions at only 400 t / a.
However, there are significant costs associated with this improvement in
performance when considering increases in cost, the public service
requirements and net CO2 equivalent emissions. When countries begin to
implement the Paris Agreement on climate change or other mechanisms are
pricing carbon, the industry You will begin to see changes in the economic
viability of the gas plant. It is possible to minimize CO2 emissions become a
key parameter in the selection of sulfur recovery technology in the future.
Alternatively, SO2 emissions could be negotiated with the local
environmental authority to taking corresponding CO2 emissions into
account.
CONCLUSIONS
A deciding the best possible configuration of AGRU / SRU / TGTU, it is
strongly recommended a study on the one hand that can offer many
different solutions to compare alternative technology. Important figures of
the project as investment costs, operating costs, net present value and land
area should be considered and evaluated. These factors vary by geographic
location and are sensitive to prices of public services and the composition of
the feed gas.
The study method presented in this article also provides appropriate data for
discussions with the authorities regulatory Local environmental. According
to Jacobs compress experience, every situation can be different and must
be evaluated in a timely manner and personal importance, preferably as a
study pase feasibility of a project. If a SRE of 99.5% was acceptable, the
catalytic conversion process has the best score in each category evaluated.
Jacob is working to compress further improve the SRE its catalytic
conversion processes and carried out a recent test to prove that it is
possible SRE of 99.6% on average. Even in this high SRE for catalytic
conversion process, there is still room for further optimization of operating
conditions and design of the equipment, which will close further the gap with
TGTU processes based on amines, providing a wider range economic
settings SRU producers of natural gas. It is important to set reasonable
goals SO2 emission in cooperation with environmental authorities, with a
focus on SO2 concentrations at the level of the soil in the region due to the
operation of the SRU instead of seeking the maximum SRE technically
possible. Enforcing emission targets very low SO2 in a renovation project or
a project update SRU can have a very negative impact on the economy and
CO2 emissions equivalent. The overall plant economics would be
particularly affected if the costs of CO2 emissions will increase significantly
with future regulations for carbon prices. Enforcing emission targets very
low SO2 in a renovation project or a project update SRU can have a very
negative impact on the economy and CO2 emissions equivalent. The overall
plant economics would be particularly affected if the costs of CO2 emissions
will increase significantly with future regulations for carbon prices. Enforcing
emission targets very low SO2 in a renovation project or a project update
SRU can have a very negative impact on the economy and CO2 emissions
equivalent. The overall plant economics would be particularly affected if the
costs of CO2 emissions will