Dry Gas Seal 4
Dry Gas Seal 4
Dry Gas Seal 4
Technology Background
Wet Seals
Centrifugal compressors require seals around the rotating shaft to prevent gases from escaping where the shaft exits the compressor casing. The more common beam type compressors have two seals, one on each end of the compressor, while over-hung compressors have a seal on only the inboard (motor) side. As shown in Exhibit 1, these seals use oil, which is circulated under high pressure between three rings around the compressor shaft, forming a barrier against the compressed gas leakage. The center ring is attached to the rotating shaft, while the two rings on each side are stationary in the seal housing, pressed against a thin film of oil flowing between the rings to both lubricate and act as a leak barrier. O-ring rubber seals prevent leakage around the stationary rings. Very little gas escapes through the oil barrier; considerably more gas is absorbed by the oil under the high pressures at the inboard (compressor side) seal oil/gas interface, thus contaminating the seal oil. Seal oil is purged of the absorbed gas (using heaters, flash tanks, and degassing techniques) and recirculated. The recovered methane is commonly vented to the atmosphere.
Dry Seals
An alternative to the traditional wet (oil) seal system is the mechanical dry seal system. This seal system does not use any circulating seal oil. Dry seals operate mechanically under the opposing force created by hydrodynamic grooves and static pressure.
$324,000b
29
18
13
General Assumptions: a Based on the difference between typical vent rates of wet and dry seals (i.e. 100 scfm versus 6 scfm) on a beam type compressor (2 seals) operating 8,000 hrs/yr. b Based on replacement of a fully functioning wet seal with additional $102,400 in O&M cost reductions.
As shown in Exhibits 2a and 2b, hydrodynamic grooves are etched into the surface of the rotating ring affixed to the compressor shaft. When the compressor is not rotating, the stationary ring in the seal housing is pressed against the rotating ring by springs. When the compressor shaft rotates at high speed, compressed gas has only one pathway to leak down the shaft, and that is between the rotating and stationary rings. This gas is pumped between the rings by grooves in the rotating ring. The opposing force of high-pressure gas pumped between the rings and springs trying to push the rings together creates a very thin gap between the rings through which little gas can leak. While the compressor is operating, the
rings are not in contact with each other, and therefore, do not wear or need lubrication. O-rings seal the stationary rings in the seal case. Putting two or more of these dry seals together in series, as shown in Exhibit 2b, is called tandem dry seals, and is very effective in reducing gas leakage. This type of seal has less than one percent of the leakage of a wet seal system vented into the atmosphere and costs considerably less to operate.
functioning wet seal at an existing compressor. About 90 percent of all new compressors come with dry seals. When purchasing a new compressor, partners should be sure that it includes a dry seal. The analysis for replacing a wet seal on an existing compressor should consider the methane emissions savings along with capital and operational costs and benefits. The economics for replacing operating wet seals are compelling, and wherever possible, partners should undertake such replacements. The decision process below is a guideline for determining candidates, benefits, and costs for replacing wet seals with dry seals in compressors.
Decision Process
Partners usually face one of three situations when considering installation of dry seals: they are replacing an entire compressor; they are replacing a worn-out wet seal at an existing compressor; or they are replacing a fully
The average methane content of natural gas varies by natural gas industry sector. The Natural Gas STAR Program assumes the following methane content of natural gas when estimating methane savings for Partner Reported Opportunities.
Production 79 % 87 % 94 %
methane gas loss. To estimate these savings, partners can measure the majority of methane loss from their wet seal compressors at the vent from the seal oil degassing unit by bagging or using a high flow sampler. Some gas also escapes at the seal face, but this is more difficult to measure and amounts to less than 10 percent of emissions from the seal oil degassing unit. Typical wet gas seal leakage ranges from 40 to 200 scfm for a beam type compressor. By comparison, expected losses from dry seals can be seen in Exhibit 3, a performance chart provided by a dry seal vendor. This chart shows an example of one type of tandem seal with leak rates ranging between 0.5 to 3 scfm for 1.5 to 10 inch compressor shafts, for compressors operating at 580 to 1,300 psig pressure. Replacing the wet seal with two tandem dry seals can reduce emissions between 34 to 194 scfm. This is equivalent to 16,320 to 93,120 Mcf per 8,000hour year, with total annual savings of $114,240 to $651,840.
switching from wet to dry seals would yield half the savings of doing the same for a beam type compressor. Beyond gas savings, dry seals also yield significant operational and maintenance savings compared with wet seals. Annual O&M costs for dry seals range widely, between $8,400 and $14,000 per year. Wet seal O&M costs can reach up to $140,000 per year. Detailed calculations of the differences in O&M costs between dry and wet seals are well documented (see Uptigrove et al., 1987). Exhibit 4 summarizes these estimates for a compressor with a7.5inch shaft diameter, operating 8,000 hours per year.
Site specific factors used in the calculations include: (1) wet and dry seal drag losses, (2) seal oil pump and cooling fan horsepower, (3) compressor horsepower, (4) seal oil consumption, and (5) annual emergency and scheduled maintenance costs.
This process is applicable to all compressor designs. The less common overhung compressors have a single seal, and
tandem dry seals. These costs will double for beam type compressors (two seals). Other costs include engineering, installation and ancillary equipment. Dry seals require a gas console, filtration unit, controls, and monitoring instruments, while wet seals require the seal oil pumps, fan coolers, degassing unit, and controls. Depending on location, type of equipment, number of controls, and availability of components, costs range from $40,500 to $135,000 for dry seals, and up to $270,000 for wet seals. These ancillary facility costs are the same for both the single and dual seal compressor types.
considers capital costs, methane emissions savings, operating and maintenance costs, and assigns a salvage value to the wet seal system. It is important to note that all analyses will be highly site-specific, but the economics of a dry seal retrofit are so attractive that companies should consider replacing all wet seals, regardless of age. Exhibit 6A presents the economics of replacing a fully functional wet seal system with a dry seal system. Exhibit 6B shows the economics for replacing an old wet seal nearing the end of its useful life: salvage value is zero and annual O&M costs for the wet seal system increase (in this example, to $140,000 per year). These two examples demonstrate that replacing a wet seal with a dry seal can be cost effective regardless of the age or condition of the wet seal system. When assessing options for replacing wet seals with dry seals in centrifugal compressors, natural gas price may
Exhibit 5: Cost Comparison for 6-Inch Shaft Beam Type Compressor Seal Replacement
Cost Category Implementation Costs
a
Seal costs (2 dry @ $13,000/shaft-inch, w/ testing) Seal costs (2 wet @ $6,750/shaft-inch) Other costs (engineering, equipment installation) Total Implementation Costs Annual O&Mc
Estimated Savings
Another way of illustrating the economics of this practice is through a five year cash flow table. This analysis
Annual methane emissionsd (@$7.00/Mcf; 8,000 hrs/yr) 2 dry seals at a total of 6 scfm 2 wet seals at total 100 scfm Total Costs Over 5-Year Period ($): Total Dry Seal Savings Over 5 Years: Savings ($) Methane Emissions Reductions (Mcf) (at 45,120 Mcf/yr)
a b
1,777,700 225,600
Flowserve Corporation, adjusted to 2006 equipment costs. Re-use existing seal oil circulation, degassing, and control equipment. c From Exhibit 4; assumes same O&M costs as 7.5-inch shaft. d Based on typical vent rates.
influence the decision making process. Exhibit 7 shows an economic analysis of early replacement of wet seals in a centrifugal compressor with dry seals at different natural gas prices.
Dry seals are considered safer to operate than wet seals, because they eliminate the need for a high pressure oil system. To make the switch to dry seals most efficiently, schedule the conversion for a normal downtime period to avoid disrupting operations. When determining the benefits of a seal replacement, partners should take into account that properly installed and maintained dry seals can last more
Lessons Learned
Partners can achieve significant cost savings and emissions reductions by converting to dry seal technology. Partners offer the following lessons learned when changing to dry seals:
Exhibit 6A: Economics of Replacing a Fully Functional Wet Seal System with a New Dry Seal System
Retrofit of dry gas seals on a beam type compressor, 6-inch shaft, operating 8,000 hours per year, with fully functional wet seals. Costs and Savings ($) Dry seal capitol & installation costs Annual natural gas savings
a
Year 0 (324,000)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
315,840 (14,100)
315,840 (14,100)
315,840 (14,100)
315,840 (14,100)
Dry seal annual O&M Costs Wet seal salvage value Avoided wet seal O&M Cost Annual Totals
102,400 404,140
102,400 404,140
102,400 404,140
b
102,400 404,140
NPV (Net Present Value) = $1,228,009 IRR (Internal Rate of Return) = 131% Payback Periodc = 10 months Annual savings represent the difference of natural gas loss between new dry seals and replaced wet seals, at $7.00/Mcf. b NPV based on 10% discount over five years. C Payback period ranges between 3 and 12 months for wet seal leakage rates between 200 and 40 scfm.
a
Exhibit 6B: Economics of Replacing an Aging Wet Seal System with a New Dry Seal System
Retrofit of dry gas seals on a beam type compressor, 6-inch shaft, operating 8,000 hours per year, with fully functional wet seals. Costs and Savings ($) Dry seal capitol & installation costs Annual natural gas savings Dry seal annual O&M Costs Wet seal salvage value Avoided wet seal O&M Cost Annual Totals (324,000) 0 140,000 441,740 140,000 441,740 140,000 441,740 140,000 441,740 140,000 441,740 Year 0 (324,000) 315,840 (14,100) 315,840 (14,100) 315,840 (14,100) 315,840 (14,100) 315,840 (14,100) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
NPV (Net Present Value) = $1,350,542 IRR (Internal Rate of Return) = 134% Payback Period = 9 months a Annual savings represent the difference of natural gas loss between new dry seals and replaced wet seals, at $7.00/Mcf. b NPV based on 10% discount over five years.
than twice as long as wet seals. If the wet seal is near the end of its useful life, a straightforward cost analysis between new seal systems will favor the dry seal. Even if the existing wet seal has substantial remaining useful life, the operational characteristics of dry seals will provide significant savings and could justify yearly replacement. Given the clear economic advantages of dry seals, they should be installed wherever it is technically feasible. Ninety percent of all new compressors now have dry gas seal systems. Dry seals should be the technology of choice for all new compressors. After replacing wet seals with dry seals, record emissions reductions in annual reports submitted as part of the Natural Gas STAR Program.
Pipeline (Natural Gas) Centrifugal Compressors. American Society of Mechanical Engineering. Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibition. June 1984. Kennedy, J.L. Oil and Gas Pipeline Fundamentals, Second Edition. PennWell Books. 1993. Klosek, Marty. Flowserve Corporation. Bridgeport, New Jersey. Personal contact. Ronsky, N. Daryl; Harris, T.A.; Conquergood, C. Peter; and Davies, I. An Effective System for Sealing Toxic Gases in Centrifugal Compressors. Sears, John. Personal contact. Stahley, John. Dresser-Rand Company. Olean, New York. Personal contact. Tingley, Kevin. U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program. Personal contact. Uptigrove, S.O.; Harris, T.A.; and Holzner, D.O. Economic Justification of Magnetic Bearings and Mechanical Dry Seals for Centrifugal Compressors. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibition. June 1987.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Gas Turbine Conference and Exhibition. June 1987. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Options for Reducing Methane and VOC Emissions from Upstream Oil and Gas Operations. December 1993. Henderson, Carolyn. U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program. Personal contact. Hesje, R.C. and R.A. Peterson. Mechanical Dry Seal Applied to
United States Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation (6202J) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 October 2006
EPA provides the suggested methane emissions estimating methods contained in this document as a tool to develop basic methane emissions estimates only. As regulatory reporting demands a higher-level of accuracy, the methane emission estimating methods and terminology contained in this document may not conform to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W methods or those in other EPA regulations.