1. New Gas Separation Process
Presented by Andrea Tran & Conner Cruson

2. Outline Conventional processing Membrane technology Amine vs. Membrane
Introduction of the new technology
Advantages/Disadvantages of new process

3. Conventional processing

4. Overview of Gas plant processing
Field operations/Inlet receiving
Inlet compression
Gas treating
Dehydration
Hydrocarbon recovery
Outlet compression

5. Conventional Process

6. Demethanizer unit

7. De-ethanizer unit

8. Amine sweetening unit
SWEET GAS
ACID GAS
SOUR
GAS
RECYCLE AMINE

9. Amine unit Advantages Disadvantages High capacity processing unit
High reactivity of gas and amine  efficient removal of acid gases
High recovery of hydrocarbon gases
Disadvantages
High energy consumption
Loss of solvent during processing

10. Other alternatives

11. Membrane technology Driving force: Partial pressure
Gas permeability (determined by membrane material)
PERMEABILITY OF GASES

12. Membrane technology
To increase the recovery of methane, a multistage membrane unit is desired:

13. Limitation of Membrane

14. Membrane Advantages Disadvantages Low capital investment
Ease of operation
No chemicals needed
Disadvantages
Requirement of feed gas pretreatment
Gas compression
Generally higher loss of hydrocarbon gases
Low capacity

15. Our new technology

16. Objective Replace the amine treatment
Reduce the overall cost of gas processing
Reduce green house gas emissions

17. Process design Technical information cannot be disclosed
at this time due to IP protection issue.
Only results and economics will be compared.

18. Design 1_CO2 removal Amine treatment unit New technology
63,030 lb-mole/hr
89.7% C1
0.7% C2
0.1% C3
0.02% iC4
9.4% CO2
58150 lb-mole/hr
97% C1
0.8% C2
2% CO2
4880 lb-mole/hr
2.6% C1
0.04% C2
0% C3
0.06% iC4
97.2% CO2
FEED GAS:
CLEAN GAS:
ACID GAS:
New technology
63,030 lb-mole/hr
89.7% C1
0.7% C2
0.1% C3
0.02% iC4
9.4% CO2
58067 lb-mole/hr
97.2% C1
0.8% C2
0.01 % iC4
1.9% CO2
4964 lb-mole/hr
2.4% C1
0.1% C2
0.5% C3
0.24% iC4
96.8% CO2
CLEAN GAS:
ACID GAS:
FEED GAS:

19. CO2 removal result Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology
Feed gas
Product gas
Acid gas
% loss C1
0.897
0.97
0.026
0.25% C2
0.007
0.008
0.0004
0.38% C3
0.001
0.000
0.12%
i-C4
0.0002
0.0006
22%
CO2
0.094
0.02
0.972
Conventional method
(Amine unit)
Feed gas
Product gas
Acid gas
% loss C1
0.897
0.972
0.024
0.2% C2
0.007
0.008
0.001
1.4% C3
0.005
29.8%
i-C4
0.0002
0.0001
0.0024
79.3%
CO2
0.094
0.019
0.968
New technology

20. Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day
Cost comparison
Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day
Conventional method
(Amine unit)
FCI
Operating cost
Annualized cost
$2,838,000
$31,969,000
$32,158,000
FCI
Operating
cost
Annualized
Cost
$1,914,000
$13,674,000
$13,802,000
New technology
*Operating costs are per year
**Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

21. Design 2 _CO2/H2S removal Amine treatment unit New technology
63,030 lb-mole/hr
85% C1
0.8% C2
0.2% C3
5% H2S
9% CO2
55263 lb-mole/hr
96.8% C1
0.9% C2
0.0% H2S
2% CO2
7676 lb-mole/hr
0.11% C1
0.0% C2
0.0% C3
39.8% H2S
60% CO2
FEED GAS:
CLEAN GAS:
ACID GAS:
New technology
63,030 lb-mole/hr
85% C1
0.8% C2
0.2% C3
5% H2S
9% CO2
54500 lb-mole/hr
97.7% C1
0.9% C2
0.04 % H2S
1.1% CO2
8530 lb-mole/hr
3.9% C1
0.1% C2
0.1% C3
36.7% H2S
59.3% CO2
CLEAN GAS:
ACID GAS:
FEED GAS:

22. CO2/H2S removal result Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology
Feed gas
Product gas
Acid gas
% loss C1
0.85
0.968
0.001
0.06% C2
0.008
0.009
0.000
0.87% C3
0.002
11.88%
H2S
0.05
0.00
0.398
CO2
0.09
0.02
0.600
Conventional method
(Amine unit)
Feed gas
Product gas
Acid gas
% loss C1
0.85
0.977
0.039
0.6% C2
0.008
0.009
0.001
1.6% C3
0.002 6%
H2S
0.05
0.0004
0.367
CO2
0.09
0.011
0.593
New technology

23. Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day
Cost comparison
Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day
Conventional method
(Amine unit)
FCI
Operating cost
Annualized cost
$3,043,000
$39,495,000
$39,698,000
FCI
Operating
cost
Annualized
$1,987,000
$15,656,000
$15,789,000
New technology
*Operating costs are per year
**Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

24. New Technology Advantages Disadvantages Low operation cost
Energy efficient process
Reduction of green house gas emissions
Recyclable solvent
No chemicals required
Disadvantages
Loss of some ethane, propane and iso-butane

25. Conclusion
The new process design significantly reduces the energy consumption.
The new process conditioning efficiency is comparable to the amine process, some loss of propane and butane.
The new process is environmentally friendly.

26. Q & A