SIGN UP Gas Processing & LNG is Produced by Gulf Publishing Holdings LLC

HOME NEWS SUPPLEMENT WEBCASTS ADVERTISE ENERGY WEB ATLAS

Select NGL recovery and optimization

technologies using simulation and algorithm
S. J. Lee, H. Y. Yoon and G. S. Chang, GS Engineering and Construction, Seoul, South Korea

It can be difficult to find common criteria for the design of NGL recovery plants. Many processes are
available in the market for NGL recovery. These processes typically utilize cryogenic-turboexpander-
based processes with one or more reflux streams, such as conventional industrial single-stage (ISS),
gas subcooled process (GSP), cold residue reflux (CRR), recycle split vapor (RSV) and others.1

The differences from one scheme to the next include the source of the reflux stream(s) and slight
variances in heat integration. They show different system configurations and different operating
conditions due to the intrinsic complexity caused by the many design variables interacting with each
other. Technology selection and optimization of the NGL recovery unit are not straightforward for the
process engineer.

To optimize the NGL recovery process configuration and design conditions, it is essential to
appropriately outline parameters with significant effects on performance during the design process.
The objective is to develop a standard procedure to select a suitable NGL recovery process to meet
the required C2/C3 recovery levels. Various design parameters are considered, such as operating
pressure, composition (richness and impurities, such as CO2 content), split ratio, expansion ratio,
operating flexibility (ethane rejection/recovery), etc.

1D 5D 1M 3M 1Y 2Y

Commodity Last Change

Crude Oil WTI 48.57 +0.61
Natural Gas (Henry Hub) 2.944 -0.100

Copyright © 2018. All market data is provided by Barchart Solutions. Futures:

at least a 10 minute delay. Information is provided 'as is' and solely for informational
purposes, not for trading purposes or advice. To see all exchange delays and terms
of use, please see disclaimer.
FIG. 1. Technology selection and optimization algorithm.

This article describes a systematic approach to NGL recovery technology selection and optimization
based on process simulations. It also shows the implementation of an algorithm to optimize the FEATURED COLUMNS
design variables of the NGL recovery process (Fig. 1). The algorithm diagram includes several
essential elements:
Editorial Comment
• Guideline to adopt a single-column or two-column system for cost-effectiveness -Adrienne Blume
As discussed in the HPI Market Data 2019
 • Logic diagram to find the optimized operating pressure of the column with split-vapor ratio report, published in November by Gas
optimization Processing & LNG’s sister publication,
• Check point of operating condition to avoid unstable operation Hydrocarbon Processing, rising propane and
• Comparison point between single-reflux systemand multi-reflux system regarding operating ethane supplies in the US have been enabled
pressure by greater production of shale gas.
• Loop to minimize refrigeration duty and investment cost by using pinch technology.The Industry Trends: Norway targets global
algorithm may be used by four types of personnel:
• A process engineer who will select and design the process technology for the basic LNG market
engineering stage -Eugene Gerden
• The owner of a new plant who will select the optimum process technology Norway aims to become a leading player in the
• The bidder of a new project who must verify the selected process global LNG market during the next several
• An operator who wishes to avoid a problematic situation caused by an unstable operating years through the establishment of new, large-
condition. scale LNG terminals.
Regional Focus: Challenges of scaling
Technology selection and optimization algorithm. Technology selection begins with the simplest up Africa’s LNG production
and cheapest process that includes the common basic items of a low-temperature separator (LTS) -Shem Oirere
and a main column (DeC1). Proceeding step by step, as shown in Fig. 1, auxiliary items are added to Several gas projects are underway in Africa,
meet the required recovery demands, thereby becoming a more complex system. This algorithm but they continue to be constrained by
helps identify which obstacles must be overcome and which evaluations must be completed prior to inadequate infrastructure, slow finance
the construction of a cost-effective plant for specific project objectives. mobilization, lack of security and uncertainty
over hydrocarbon regulations that are casting
Step 1: Confirm design basis. The design basis is the stepping stone for the selection of the NGL
doubt on the outcome of the continent’s drive
recovery process. It starts with basic parameters, such as feed composition, battery limit condition
to meet its anticipated 128% gas demand
and target recovery level. These parameters affect mainly cost and process efficiency. These values
increase by 2040.
must be confirmed before a technology selection algorithm is started.

Natural gas feedstock comes from one or more gas wells. Depending on the production year and the
operation of upstream units (e.g., long pipe, treating unit and dehydration unit), gas pressure and
composition may be varied, so the tabulation of feed conditions is important for selecting the best GasPro 2.0: A Webcast
process configuration. Symposium

Step 2: Determine mechanical design parameters. Such parameters include mechanical Register Now
characteristics, such as rotating equipment efficiency, the pressure drop of each piece of equipment,
minimum heat exchanger temperature approach, etc. Some values (e.g., pressure drop) may need to The global LNG industry is
be adjusted up or down for higher or lower operating pressures. Rotating equipment efficiencies becoming increasingly
generally increase with plant size. interconnected as grassroots
export projects get off the
These parameters must be determined carefully, because they affect the entire performance of the ground. Another technology
process and the selection result. The exact values of these parameters usually come from the route for processing gas into
vendor’s information. In the conceptual design stage, typical values are to be used.2 fuels—GTL—is attracting
renewed attention due to
Step 3: Make reflux configuration changes. The reflux configuration varies with the project improving economics. Small-
requirement. If the project purpose is dewpoint control only, then no additional items (such as scale solutions for both LNG
turboexpander or external reflux streams) are required. and GTL are at the forefront
of new technological
For C2/C3 recovery, the turboexpander-based process is to be used. In case of low recovery level, the developments, while major
turboexpander process utilizes a non-refluxed column. This design provides no external reflux feed projects using more
and no fractionation stages above the expander feed nozzle on the column. This has often been conventional technologies
referred to as the ISS process. continue to start up around
the world.
High-level C2 recovery processes typically utilize a single column with one or more reflux streams.
The column is externally refluxed with a subcooled and flashed process stream (split-vapor process). During this webcast, we will
It also has fractionation stages above the expander feed. This eliminates dependence on the focus on LNG, GTL, gas
expander to generate column reflux, and it provides better recovery at lower energy consumption. processing technology
When the project requires ethane-rejection mode, flexibility to expander plants for high propane developments and
recovery should be evaluated, regardless of the ethane recovery, by providing multiple external reflux deployments, operations,
streams for the column (residue recycle process). small-scale solutions,
transportation, trading,
High-level C3 recovery processes typically utilize a two-column process where the first column is distribution, safety, regulatory
generally refluxed with a stream generated from the second column (overhead recycle process). The affairs, business analysis and
first column will make a rough component separation, while the second column will produce an on- more.
spec liquid product. This energy-efficient process is capable of recovering essentially all the
contained propane. October 25, 2018 08:30 AM
CDT

Register Now

FIG. 2. Simulation template for split-vapor (GSE) process.

Many different types of process schemes are available. The differences from one scheme to the next
include the source of the reflux stream(s) and slight variances in heat integration. This step is a
guideline to provide the process engineer with a reference before selecting an optimized process
scheme. Through this algorithm, the effect of the variances in configuration can be evaluated. In this
article, the split-vapor process (GSP), as shown in Fig. 2, is used as the reference case to show how
this algorithm finds optimum condition at 80% ethane recovery.

Step 4: Set LTS operating pressure. Since no economical cold utility is available for overhead
condensing in a natural gas field where infrastructure is not well prepared, the cold energy generated
by the pressure drop between the LTS and the column is used to recover NGL product; this is why it
is called self-refrigeration.

The initial LTS pressure is set by feed pressure after adjustment for pressure drop. It can also be
changed to allow proper operation and recovery: it can be increased by feed gas compression or
decreased by pressure let-down for effective and stable operation. Most importantly, this pressure
should be sufficiently high to generate the cold temperatures required for efficient NGL recovery.

Step 5: Set column operating pressure. The main column overhead conditions should be
determined according to required product specification and recovery level. The design objective is to
achieve the required recoveries with minimal capital and operating expenses. For a cryogenic
turboexpander-based process, the design objective is achieved primarily by minimizing residue gas
compression, which is the costliest option in terms of both CAPEX and OPEX. In pursuit of this goal,
the column pressure should be operated at the highest possible pressure while still meeting recovery
objectives.

In general, there are upper and lower limits to column pressure. The upper limit is a constraint of the
column, which must operate at pressures low enough to prevent the loss of separation efficiency and
to maintain phase stability (i.e., avoid critical conditions). The lower limit is CO2 freezing temperature.

The operating pressure is adjusted by examining the compression ratio, the column design pressure
and CO2 freezing temperature. These parameters are highly correlated with costs and operational
stability. A cost trade-off exists between the number of compressor stages and the column design
pressure. As a starting point, two compressor stages with a compression ratio of approximately 2
stage can be used.

Typical column pressure varies in the range of 25 barg–32 barg. For a preliminary design, 25 barg
can be used as an initial point. Through following these iteration steps, the optimum pressure can be
found.

Step 6: Optimize split-vapor ratio and LTS temperature. When the reflux configuration and the
operating pressure of LTS and column DeC1 are set, the LTS temperature is determined at a fixed
recovery level. This can be easily accomplished by using an adjustment utility in the simulation
program. The split-vapor process uses a small portion of the split vapor from the LTS as the top reflux
to the DeC1 after condensation and substantial subcooling. When the split vapor is used to provide
subcooled reflux, the split ratio should be optimized since it affects the LTS temperature and recovery
level.

The point is that the highest LTS temperature is advantageous to heat exchanger network design at
the same recovery level and the same operating pressure. The LTS temperature increases when the
heat recovery in the subcooler increases. To maximize the LTS temperature, heat recovery in the
subcooler should be maximized by adjusting the split ratio.

A case study was conducted to evaluate the effect of split ratio and the LTS operating temperature at
the same operating pressure to achieve 80% ethane recovery. The split-vapor ratio was 0.15 for
Case 1 and 0.33 for Case 2.

As per the simulation results, Case 1 requires 37.5% more reboiler duty and 41.8% more refrigeration
duty than Case 2, as shown in Table 1. The lower temperature of the LTS separator tends to over-
condense methane (C1) in the liquid phase. Column DeC1 is designed to remove methane in NGL
product (C1/C2 ratio is 0.017). When the over-condensed C1 is fed to the DeC1, it requires more
reboiler duty to strip C1. It also needs corresponding cold energy to provide enough reflux to meet the
required ethane recovery level.

FIG. 3. Composite curve for Case 1 (split-vapor ratio of 0.15) and

Case 2 (split-vapor ratio of 0.3).

Fig. 3 shows the T-H diagram for the composite curve of Case 1 and Case 2 (reboiler duty excluded).
Since the high-quality cold energy source (low temperature) is limited to the DeC1 overhead stream,
it is important to recover heat in the subcooler as much as possible. For this, the split ratio should be
optimized. In the T-H diagram, the degree of slope is equal to the heat capacity. When the amount of
split vapor to the subcooler increases, the hot-side curve leans toward the horizontal axis. By
adjusting the split ratio, the hot and cold composite curves can move closer to each other. This will
increase heat recovery in the subcooler and generate more reflux to the DeC1 column. Finally, the
highest temperature of the LTS can be achieved by optimizing the split-vapor ratio at a given recovery
level. This hot temperature prevents over-condensing of methane, so it can reduce the total amount
of cold energy (external refrigeration duty).

Step 7: Check vapor-liquid equilibrium stability. After the operating condition of LTS is set, the
stability should be checked. The LTS works as both an expander suction knockout drum and as a
supplier of reflux to the main column. As a result, the liquid disengagement must be considered in
addition to the operating condition for NGL recovery and efficiency.

Many first-generation expander plants experience instability problems associated with vapor-liquid
equilibrium. When the operating pressure is above a critical point, retrograde vaporization will occur
as temperature decreases. Small changes in the separator temperature cause large changes in the
amount of vapor entering the expander, resulting in sudden changes in the expander speed that
cause the tower pressure to surge and the process gas temperatures to fluctuate, until the entire
plant is oscillating.3 This can be tested by examining the vapor flowrate variation at the time of
temperature change, as shown in Table 2. When the temperature drops below –48°C, vapor flowrate
begins to increase, eventually reaching 0 at –54°C.

This region of instability can be avoided by keeping the separator temperature warmer than the
optimum temperature, which is achieved in Step 6. However, this will sacrifice ethane recovery. The
next step to avoid vapor instability without limiting product recovery is to decrease the DeC1
pressure. If the LTS pressure is higher than the critical pressure, then the LTS pressure should be
decreased below the critical pressure.

Step 8: Check CO2 freeze margin. CO2 freezing must be prevented since it affects plant operation
and process efficiency. It is checked using the CO2 freezing temperature approach (∆TCO2) at some
locations.4 Based on the selected operating pressure, the CO2 freezing temperature of the stage
liquids and vapors in the column should be checked. The expander outlet stream should also be
checked. When the CO2 freezing temperature approach is less than the required margin (or 3°C), the
column operating pressure from Step 5 should be increased to raise the column operating
temperature. This routine should be repeated until the CO2 freezing temperature margin is sufficient.

FIG. 4. Conceptual diagram for pinch analysis.

Step 9: Perform pinch analysis. The next step is to check the feasibility of the operating condition
defined by previous steps in terms of heat balance. For this purpose, pinch technology is utilized. The
temperature, duty, flow and heat capacity from the stream data in the simulation should first be
tabulated, as shown in Fig. 4. The data are summarized in Table 3.

In the precooler, the feed gas is cooled to the LTS temperature determined in previous steps for the
desired recovery level. It consists of a gas/gas exchanger and a gas/liquid exchanger. Since the
lowest cold utility (if required) is a propane refrigerant of –40°C for economic reasons, the remaining
cold energy below –40°C will be provided by the process gas itself. Potential cold energy sources are
the column overhead, side reboiler draw, main reboiler draw and column bottoms.

The authors recommend starting with the column overhead as the only available cold source; no
external refrigeration system is installed. In this step, the capital cost is evaluated; refrigeration
system installation is not considered. If it is not found to be feasible, the cost will be added. If
temperature cross emerges, one or more side reboilers should be added, if possible. If a side reboiler
cannot provide enough cold energy, an external refrigeration system should be added.
 FIG. 5. Composite curve for Case 3 split-vapor process with two side
reboilers.

This process can be plotted as shown in Fig. 5. More side reboiler duty results in less external
refrigeration duty. At the same recovery level, total reboiling duty will be almost constant; therefore,
the portion of side reboiler duty will be limited because the side-draw temperature increases when the
side reboiler duty increases. This portion will be optimized until “pinch”—i.e., the cold-side curve of
the side reboiler close to the hot-side composite curve. As per simulation results (Case 3), the
required refrigeration duty can be reduced by 70% compared to Case 2, when reboiling duty is used
as side reboiler (Table 1).

Note that composite curves vary with operating condition. Phase change should be considered when
making the composite curve. The energy target should include not only the refrigeration duty but also
the compressor power, which is affected by pressure. When these provisions fail to work and result in
temperature cross, the pressure difference between the feed and the column should be increased
because the defined operating pressure is not feasible. This can be achieved by decreasing the
operating pressure of the column or increasing the feed gas pressure through feed gas compression.

Step 10: Change operating pressure. To determine whether to increase LTS pressure or decrease
column pressure when the operating pressure is not feasible, economical efficiency must be
evaluated. If a feed gas compression system is already installed, then increasing LTS pressure may
be more economical; however, if it exceeds the critical pressure, then the feed pressure cannot be
increased due to the LTS phase envelope margin. The process efficiency begins to decrease over 48
barg due to the over-condensing of methane. For inlet gas pressures in the range of 51 barg–69 barg
(750 psig–1,000 psig), the turboexpander pressure drop that is required to meet the recovery
objectives results in a column operating pressure within the range of satisfactory operation. The result
is an efficient, well-integrated process.

However, when the inlet gas pressure is above this range, reducing the column pressure will be more
economical. Before changing the column operating pressure, the CO2 freezing temperature margin
must be checked. Case 4 shows the effect of column pressure decrease on required refrigeration
duty. When the pressure is decreased by 23 barg, the external refrigeration system can be removed.
If column pressure cannot be decreased due to CO2 freezing, it is not possible to achieve the desired
recovery with the present process configuration. In this case, it is advisable to proceed directly to
Step 13.

Step 11: Check excess duty. If a sufficient gap exists between the hot and cold composite curve
without temperature cross—meaning that there is excess duty—then column operating pressure can
be increased until the excess duty reaches zero (pinch). Repeat this step to find the highest column
pressure. To evaluate the economic benefit, two cases can be tested—one with a refrigeration
system and one without. For example, the installation of an external refrigeration system will require a
higher system cost, but it may also reduce the cost of the residue gas compression system because
the column pressure can be increased.

Step 12: Check stages of residue gas compressor. From Step 1 to Step 11, this algorithm led to
an optimized operating pressure with a simple reflux configuration. This process could be improved
by introducing a multi-reflux system. A simple way to decide whether to introduce a multi-reflux
system is to check the number of stages of the residue gas compressor. If the number of stages can
be reduced by reflux modification, then adding a leaner reflux is more economical.

Case 5 shows that when the residue recycle is added to the top of the column as reflux, the column
operating pressure can be increased by 28 barg at the same recovery level. In spite of less flow being
expanded via the expander, this leaner reflux flow permits an improved ethane recovery even at a
higher column pressure, thereby reducing the compression ratio. Since the pressure ratio is
decreased, the discharge temperature is decreased to the point where a one-stage compressor can
be adopted. It also provides an advantage in reducing the risk of CO2 freezing in the DeC1.

Step 13: Add leaner reflux. The maximum recovery achievable with split-vapor processes is limited
to the ethane recovery by the vapor-liquid equilibrium in the top section of the column because the
split vapor, which is used as reflux, contains a considerable amount of ethane. When the residue
recycle is introduced as reflux, the column has an intrinsic rectifying section (RSV process). The
ethane and heavier components in the column overhead can be recovered as needed by increasing
the recycle ratio of the leaner reflux, which has the same composition with column distillate.

The design and turndown capacity of the residue gas compressor must be evaluated for operational
stability. A dedicated recycle compressor may be installed separately with a residue gas sendout
compressor.

When the recycle ratio is too high, an additional reflux drum can be installed. It will provide leaner split
vapor so that the residue recycle rate can be reduced at the same recovery level. If the required
recovery level is higher than 95%, then a multi-reflux system is more economical.

Step 14: Check off-design cases. In a gas processing plant, several designs may exist to
accommodate different feeds and seasons. The designer should check for abnormal cases that
enhance productivity and reliability within a range of flexibility. To evaluate these off-design cases,
mechanical design parameters (rotating equipment efficiency, pressure drops and exchanger rates)
specified in Step 2 should be adjusted for all plant simulations.

Step 15: Check product specifications. All required product specifications must be checked
carefully. For example, if CO2 concentration in the NGL product exceeds the required product
specification, then heat must be added to the column with the side and/or main reboiler to raise the
temperature in the bottom of the stripping section. However, this may result in a loss of ethane
recovery.
 To reduce CO2 concentration without significant ethane recovery loss, carbon dioxide control (CDC)
can be applied.5 In a typical reboiler or side reboiler, the entire column downflowing liquid stream is
withdrawn from the tower and passed through a heat exchanger, then returned to the column at
essentially the same point in the column. With the CDC scheme, a portion of the column downflowing
liquid is withdrawn from a point higher up in the column. Since the relative volatilities for CO2 and
ethane are very similar, methane vapor is a much more effective stripping agent than ethane vapor,
which increases the stripping efficiency in the column. For the RSV process, the flexibility of the
residue recycle ratio can be combined with the advantages of the CDC scheme to reduce the CO2
concentration of the bottom product with a smaller drop in ethane recovery.6

Recommendations. At the beginning of the NGL recovery project, process technology is selected
without systematic evaluation, due to its intrinsic complexity. The process design chosen at this stage
is usually not changed until the end of the project, which can result in an uneconomical design in
terms of CAPEX and OPEX.

An algorithm to find the most economical technology and the optimized operating condition has been
discussed. By following the steps outlined, a process engineer can obtain the most economical
process configuration, as well as the optimized operating condition. Anticipated operational problems
can also be checked.

This step-by-step process can be used to verify if the selected process technology is adequate at the
basic engineering or EPC bidding stage. It can also be applied to an operating plant to test whether or
not the existing design is optimum, or if improvements are needed for the next retrofit project.

The final process selection should be based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis that examines the
costs of investment, depreciation and the market price of liquid ethane. GP

Literature cited

1. Pitman, R. N., “Next generation processes for NGL/LPG recovery,” Gas Processors
Association (GPA) Annual Convention, Austin, Texas, 2009.
2. Lynch, J. T., “How to compare cryogenic process design alternatives for a new project,” GPA
Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas, 2007.
3. Lynch, J. T., J. D. Wilkinson, H. M. Hudson and R. N. Pitman, “Process retrofits maximize the
value of existing NGL and LPG recovery plants, Ortloff Engineers Ltd., Midland, Texas.
4. Eggeman, T. and S. Chafin, “Pitfalls of CO2 freezing prediction,” GPA Annual Convention,
San Antonio, Texas, 2003.
5. Hudson, H. M., J. D. Wilkinson, J. T. Lynch and M. C. Pierce, “Reducing treating requirements
for cryogenic NGL recovery plants,” GPA Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas, 2001.
6. Pennybaker, K. A., S. E. Wolverton, S. W. Chafin and T. R. Ruddy, “A comparative study of
ethane recovery processes,” River City Engineering Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, 2000.

SUKJOO LEE is a Process Engineer at GS Engineering and Construction.

He has more than 8 yr of process modeling and design experience in
petrochemicals and gas processing, with a focus on NGL recovery and sulfur
recovery technologies. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from
Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea.

HYUN-YONG YOON is a Process/Commissioning Engineer at GS

Engineering and Construction. He has more than 7 yr of process modeling,
design and commissioning experience in refining and gas processing,
especially for NGL recovery projects. He holds a BS degree in chemical
engineering from Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul, South Korea.

GEUN-SOO CHANG is a Principal Process Engineer and Leader of the plant

basic engineering group for GS Engineering and Construction. He holds an
MS degree in chemical engineering from Seoul National University in South
Korea. He has contributed to basic and detailed engineering, commissioning
and troubleshooting for numerous EPC projects for refineries and
petrochemical plants.

| Projects | Contact Us | About Us | Site Map | Gulf Energy Info | World Oil | Hydrocarbon Processing | Construction BoxScore | Webcasts | White Papers | Newsletter
Sign-Up | Advertise | US Directory | Subscribe Free | Gastech-Show-Daily |

Please read our Term and Conditions, Cookies Policy, and Privacy Policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2019 Gulf Publishing Holdings LLC.