TD Epcc
TD Epcc
TD Epcc
Company Limited
VOLUME-2A
(PROCESS)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 2A (PROCESS)
Specifications
4985-GA-8302-0
4985-GA-8301-0
Hydraulic Study
4985-A-1050-0
P&IDs
4985-PB-2101-0
LEGEND
4985-PB-2102-0
LEGEND
4985-PB-2103-3
4985-PB-2104-3
4985-PB-2105-3
4985-PB-2106-2
4985-PB-2107-2
4985-PB-2108-2
4985-PB-2109-3
4985-PB-2110-3
4985-PB-2111-3
4985-PB-2112-3
Slug Catcher
4985-PB-2113-3
4985-PB-2114-2
Condensate Storage
4985-PB-2115-2
4985-PB-2116-3
4985-PB-2117-3
4985-PB-2118-3
Amine Contactor
4985-PB-2119-3
4985-PB-2120-3
4985-PB-2121-2
4985-PB-2122-3
4985-PB-2123-2
4985-PB-2124-2
4985-PB-2125-2
4985-PB-2126-3
4985-PB-2127-2
4985-PB-2128-2
Amine Sump
4985-PB-2129-3
1 of 3
4985-PB-2130-3
4985-PB-2131-3
4985-PB-2132-3
4985-PB-2133-3
4985-PB-2134-2
4985-PB-2135-2
4985-PB-2136-2
Diesel System
4985-PB-2137-2
4985-PB-2138-3
4985-PB-2139-2
4985-PB-2140-2
Flare System
4985-PB-2141-2
Incinerator System
4985-PB-2142A-2
4985-PB-2142B-2
4985-PB-2143-2
4985-PB-2144-2
4985-PB-2145-2
4985-PB-2146-2
4985-PB-2147-2
4985-PB-2148-1
4985-PB-2149-1
4985-PB-2150-0
4985-PB-2151-0
4985-PB-2152-1
4985-PB-2153-0
4985-PB-2154-0
4985-PB-2161-0
4985-PB-2162-0
4985-PB-2163-1
4985-PB-2164-1
4985-PB-2165-0
Gas Pipeline
Collection)
2 of 3
Delivery
Station
(Condensate
PFDs
4985-B-1501-2
4985-B-1502-2
4985-B-1503-2
4985-B-1504-2
Condensate Storage
4985-B-1505-2
4985-B-1506-2
4985-B-1507-2
4985-B-1508-2
Amine Sump
4985-B-1509-2
Dehydration Unit
4985-B-1510-2
Dehydration Unit
4985-B-1511-2
4985-B-1512-2
4985-B-1513-2
4985-B-1514-2
4985-B-1515A
4985-B-1515B
4985-B-1516-2
Diesel System
4985-B-1517-0
4985-B-1518-1
4985-B-1519-2
(Sheet 1 of 2)
4985-B-1519-2
(Sheet 2 of 2)
4985-B-1520-0
4985-B-1521-0
4985-B-1522-0
4985-B-1523-0
4985-B-1524-0
3 of 3
Rev. 0
Prepared by
Checked by
Approved by
Revised by
2
1
: AI
: MHQ/FS
: NMC
: DF
06-07-2010
15-06-2010
02-03-009
Rev.
Description of Revision
Date
CONTENTS
SR.NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NO.
1.0
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
LIST OF ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE I
ANNEXURE II
ANNEXURE III
ANNEXURE IV
ANNEXURE V
ANNEXURE VI
ANNEXURE VII
Sheet 2 of 58
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited OGDCL is intending to implement
UCH expansion project. As per plans the raw gas around 300 MMSCFD from fifteen
production wells of UCH will be transported to a new gas processing facility. The
new plant is located adjacent to an existing plant consisting two trains with
processing capacity of 150 MMSCFD each.
The first phase of the project was to select a process for the treatment of gas. The
basic requirement of the treatment system is to very selectively remove H2S to
pipeline specification meeting the overall heating value of 45050 BTU/SCF. The
process need to be selective for H2S.
This report covers the Phase-I of the assignment encompassing the issues for alternate
gas treatment processes, considering process capabilities, process limitations and give
recommendations for the process to be adopted for processing UCH-II.
2.0
2.1
PLANT DEFINITION
Type of Plant
Location Of Plant
Capacity of Plant
150 x 2 MMSCFD
Sheet 3 of 58
Slug-Catcher
Gas Turbine
Sheet 4 of 58
Figure 2.1
Sheet 5 of 58
The above is to show the main steps involved and does not cover complete equipment
list.
Multiple-phase flow, predominantly gas comes out of wells and gathered at central
processing plant. The mixed gas is then separated in a slug catcher (3-phase
separator). The gas then passes through acid gas removal plant and dehydration plant.
This treated gas is then transported through 120 km transmission line to a Power
Plant.
To establish a design pressure figure required for gas treatment units, preliminary
pressure drop calculation for the 120 km sales gas transmission line having 26" dia
have been made. This can be optimized during design stage.
2.2
DESIGN CONDITION
Wellhead flowing pressure
1000 psig
105 F
181 STB/day
1232 STB/day
306 MMSCFD
0.59 STB/MMSCF
H2S Contents
1000 ppm
CO2 Contents
40.73 Vol%
Sheet 6 of 58
2.3
BASIS OF DESIGN
The UCH gas reservoir is composed of three lobes namely Eastern, Central and
Western lobe with generally different gas compositions and thus BTU content. Gas
production collected from all the three lobes via individual flow line will be
commingled and delivered to H2S removal plant. As per OGDCL advice the
compositional analysis mentioned in Design Approval Document of existing plant
has been used for Heat and Material Balance of new plant. The detailed composition
of all individual lobes is presented hereunder
Gas
Western Lobe
Central Lobe
Eastern Lobe
Mol %
Mol %
Mol %
H2S
0.08
0.02
0.06
CO2
43.25
43.22
21.87
N2
23.82
19.60
7.89
C1
26.74
30.87
62.21
C2
0.66
0.75
1.88
C3
0.24
0.28
0.51
iC4
0.06
0..07
0.13
nC4
0.06
0.08
0.13
iC5
0.04
0.03
0.10
nC5
0.02
0.01
0.07
C6+
0.75
0.79
0.87
Water
4.28
4.28
4.28
Component
The design is based on the mixture analysis obtained after mixing the gas from three
lobes in the proportion mentioned below:
EASTERN LOBE
21.0%
WESTERN LOBE
42.9%
CENTRAL LOBE
36.1%
Sheet 7 of 58
However the gas analysis obtained by blending of three lobes having different
heating value are presented hereunder
Component
H2S
CO2
N2
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
Water
2.4
Vol %
0.10
40.73
19.84
37.58
1.00
0.32
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.16
Availability
2.5
LOCAL CONDITIONS
Site Elevation
Climate Conditions
Ambient Temperatures
Minimum 24.8F,
Maximum 131F
Relative Humidity
Earthquake Zone
45% to 90%
Sheet 8 of 58
3.0
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
3.1
CONDENSATE
There is no vapour pressure specification given, however, the condensate will be
stabilized to atmospheric pressure (true vapour pressure of 14.7 psia) suitable for
transport by road tanker.
3.2
Hydrocarbon
Dew-point
Water Content
Have a water content not greater than seven (7) pounds per
million standard cubic feet; and
Total Sulphur
Hydrogen
Sulphide
Carbon Dioxide
Oxygen
Gross Calorific
Value
Have Gross Calorific Value not less than four hundred and
fifty (450-500) Btu per standard cubic feet
Temperature
Pressure
Sheet 9 of 58
4.0
5.0
5.1
In order for a solvent to be regenerative it should be weak base that reacts with the
weak acid components (H2S and CO2) too yield a soluble salt that can be broken
with heat. Acid stronger than carbonic acid will require excessive energy for
regeneration. The alkanolammines (MEA, DEA, DIPA, DGA and MDEA) are typical
of the weak base utilized in this group.
5.1.2 CHEMICAL SOLVENTS (LIQUID) NON-REGENERATIVE
In recent years this non-regenerative technology has been used successfully in a class
of chemicals called H2S scavengers. As the name suggests, the processes are
selective to H2S and show low propensity for removal of CO2. The scavengers are
primarily used to treat small quantity gas streams with small levels of H2S; gas
streams that would not be economically treated by a standard amine unit. This process
was therefore considered for evaluation.
Sheet 10 of 58
The physical solvents depend upon a high acid gas partial pressure for solubility, with
subsequent pressure reduction for regeneration. Energy requirements for these
processes are reduced. Heat of regeneration is not necessarily required. Absorbed
acid gases are released by simple pressure reduction. These processes are also
effective when total reduced sulphur removal is required (mercaptans, COS, etc) as
they have greater affinity for these species than generic amines.
5.1.4 CHEMICAL / PHYSICAL SOLVENTS
This group of solvents resulted from the use of both chemical and physical solvents in
the same solution in order to use the better characteristics of both. These processes
are definitely more effective at high acid gas partial pressures.
5.1.5 SOLID GAS TREATING PROCESS (CHEMICAL)
Solids such as hydrated metal oxides may be dispersed on an inert support for contact
with the gas stream containing H2S. Metal carbonates form much slower than metal
sulfides under the same conditions, thus providing a high degree of selectivity for
H2S.
5.1.6 SOLID GAS TREATING PROCESS (NON-CHEMICAL)
Molecular sieves with uniform and well-defined pore openings can be utilized in acid
gas removal as well as dehydration of gas stream. The adsorbed acid gas can be
regenerated with heated stripping gas. Normally, H2S affects the binder of a standard
molecular sieve causing product breakage, so special acid-resistant sieves need to be
used in sour gas applications.
5.1.7 MEMBRANE GAS TREATING PROCESSES
Membrane differs from molecular sieves in that sieves allow the carrier gas to pass
through while retraining the acid gas. Membrane, on the other hand, separates the
acid gas from the carrier gas by allowing the acid gas to pass through the membrane.
The recovery of a concentrated acid gas stream at low energy cost is thus possible
Sheet 11 of 58
These processes fall into either regions between gas sweetening and sulphur recovery.
The H2S in the inlet gas is converted directly to elemental sulphur by the reaction of
the acid gas with an iron chelate solution. This process uses a dilute water solution of
iron, which is held in solution by organic chelating agents. The iron in solution
oxidizes the H2S to sulphur. The sulphur is settled out of the solution filter pressed
and recovered for potential sale, which the circulating solution is regenerated with air
and sent back to the absorber. The process does not remove CO2, COS, CS2 or
mercaptans.
Sheet 12 of 58
Sheet 13 of 58
5.2
Sheet 14 of 58
MDEA with mixture of primary solvent was used by ENAR to simulate the plants main
parameters considered are:
Major Parameters
Inlet flow
150 MMSCFD
MDEA conc.
48 wt.%
DEA conc.
2 wt.%
Rich loading
Circulation rate
4400 gpm
Reboiler duty
95 MMBtu/hr
Solvent losses
0.02 gpm
Chemical solvent processes use an aqueous solution of a weak base to chemically react
with and absorb the acid gas component from the natural gas stream. The absorption
occurs as a result of the driving force of the partial pressure from the gas to the liquid.
The reactions involved are reversible by changing the system temperature or pressure, or
both. Therefore, the aqueous base solution can be regenerated and thus circulated in a
continuous cycle. A typical Amine System is shown in Figure5.2
Sheet 15 of 58
Figure 5.2
TYPICAL AMINE SWEETENING SYSTEM
The sour gas enters the system through an inlet scrubber to remove any entrained water
or hydrocarbon liquids. Then the gas enters the bottom of the amine absorber and flows
counter-current to the amine solution. The absorber can be either a trayed or packed
tower. An outlet scrubber is included to recover entrained amines from the sweet gas.
The amine solution leaves the bottom of the absorber carrying with it the acid gases.
This solution containing the CO2 and H2S is referred to as the rich solvent. From the
absorber the rich solvent is flashed to a flash tank to remove almost all the dissolved
hydrocarbon gases and entrained hydrocarbon condensates. A small percentage of the
acid gases will also flash to the vapour phase in this vessel.
Process Flow Diagram and material balance of the system are attached as Annexure I.
From the flash tank the rich amine proceeds through a charcoal filter for hydrocarbon
removal and then through a sock filter to remove any solid particles. The rich amine then
passes to amine/amine exchanger. This exchanger recovers some of the sensible heat
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 16 of 58
from the lean amine stream to decrease the heat duty on the amine re-boiler. The heated
rich amine then enters the amine-stripping tower where heat from the re-boiler breaks
the bonds between the amines and acid gases. The acid gases are removed overhead and
lean amine is removed from the bottom of the stripper. The hot lean amine proceeds to
the amine/amine exchanger and then to additional coolers to lower its temperature. The
cooled lean amine is then pumped up to the absorber pressure and enters the top of the
absorber. As the amine solution flows down the absorber it absorbs the acid gases. The
rich amine is then removed at the bottom of the tower and the cycle is repeated.
The Gas Spec claims that the unique property of their solvent provides good result in
application where MDEA cannot achieve the required H2S specification
Physical Properties
Specific Gravity
1.05
Viscosity
34 cP @ 104 F
Boiling point
360 F
-8.5 F
-8.5 F
200 Btu/lb
295 F
Sheet 17 of 58
Services Offered
Major Parameters
Inlet flow
150 MMSCFD
2.2 ppmv
32 vol%
2200 gpm
Rich loading
Re-boiler duty
123.56 MMBtu/hr
Condenser Duty
39.95 MMBtu/hr
Solvent cost
HEIGHT
DIAMETER
ft (T/T)
ft
Amine Absorber
30
12.5
Amine Stripper
50
11.5
Sheet 18 of 58
Utility Estimates
ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION
123.56 MMBtu/hr
39.95 MMBtu/hr
Electricity
970 kW
Water make up
11.3 gpm
HUNTSMAN claims that this solvent can be used for gas and liquid treating application.
It should be considered as an alternative for applications which currently use first
generation primary or secondary alkanolamines such as MEA and DEA to remove CO2.
Solvent should also be considered for applications which currently use MDEA or
formulated MDEA solvents, but required deeper CO2 removal.
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 19 of 58
The supplier also claims that their solvent has higher reaction rates with CO2 than
diethanolamione based formulated DEA solvent .Rapid reaction with CO2 allows
Jefftreat MP solvent to achieve very deep CO2 removal while retaining the
characteristics of allowing deep regeneration.
This solvent should be considered mainly for application in which H2S is not present
for applications in which the mole ratios of CO2 to H2S in the untreated gas is very high.
Huntsman recommends that JEFFTREAT MP solvent be used in concentrations of 40 to
50 wt. % for optimum process efficiency.
Physical Properties:
Specific Gravity
1.04 @ 20C
Viscosity
Boiling point
477 F
-5.8 F
240 F
Services Offered
Start-up assistance.
Training programs.
Major Parameters
0.68 ppm
33.35 %
Sheet 20 of 58
1767 gpm
Rich loading
Reboiler duty
121.2 MMBtu/hr
Condenser Duty
38.8 MMBtu/hr
Solvent cost
1.723 US$/lb
DIAMETER
ft
Amine Absorber
46
12
Amine Stripper
46
14
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Utility Estimates
ESTIMATED
CONSUMPTION/TRAIN
121.2 MMBtu/hr
38.82 MMBtu/hr
Electricity
Water make up
Sheet 21 of 58
Dow Gas Treating Products & Services provides solutions for a wide variety of
applications. In the range of amine solvents Dow Chemical Company offers:
UCARSOL AP 802 is specific for bulk CO2 removal in natural gas. It is effective
both in sweet and sour streams. The corrosivity of rich UCARSOL AP 802 is also
lower than generic solvents. It gives optimum performance when used as 50%
aqueous solution.
Dow did not provide any data for evaluation of UCARSOL AP 82 solvent.
However, their solvent is similar to other proprietary solvents and offer similar
services.
Sheet 22 of 58
Amine Guard process is a thermally regenerated cyclic solvent process that uses a
high concentration alkanolamine solution with patented, metal-passivating
corrosion inhibitor to remove and /or recover CO2.
The licensor claims that Amine Guard process uses increased amine concentration
optimized CO2 solution loading, decreased solvent circulation, reduced re-boiler
duty and expanded processing capacity for CO2 removal compared with
conventional amine technologies. The inhibitor maintenance equipment is easy to
fabricate and operate and the equipment can be added during normal operation.
The inhibitors are packed in water proof bags to facilitate handling and eliminate
operator exposure.
Major Parameters
Inlet flow
40.94 %
5.7 ppm
1998 gpm
Reboiler duty
140 MMBtu/hr
Condenser Duty
58 MMBtu/hr
Solvent losses
0.044 gpm
Cost of Solvent
License fees
650,000 US$
150 MMSCFD
Sheet 23 of 58
HEIGHT
DIAMETER
ft (T/T)
ft
Amine Absorber
48
11
Amine Stripper
76
10.25
Utility Estimates
The UOP Amine Guard Process requires the following utilities for operation
- Heating medium steam (or heat transfer fluid).
- Water for solvent dilution and make up water, the water should be oxygen free
and steam condensate or equivalent quality.
- Cooling water for lean solvent trim cooling before entering the absorber.
- Electricity
- Nitrogen or oxygen free blanket gas for solvent storage.
UTILITY
ESTIMATED
CONSUMPTION/TRAIN
140 MMBtu/hr
58 MMBtu/hr
Electricity
Water make up
1960 kW
7 gpm
The general details of UOP AMINE GUARD process and reference list are attached as
Annexure I.
Sheet 24 of 58
Exxon Mobile Research Engineering (EMRE) has developed and commercialized the
flexsorb SE solvent and process is based on severely hindered amine to meet these
processing objectives. This amine is specifically tailored to provide high capacity for
absorbing H2S selectively in the presence of high concentrations of CO2.
EMRE claims that the discovery of H2S selective amines was the result of Exxon
Mobils studies of the fundamentals of reaction of H2S and CO2 with amines. It started
with study of the tertiary amines and led to the concept of severely hindered amines. The
reaction of CO2 with water is very slow. The reaction of CO2 with the common primary
and secondary alkanolamines is fast due to the formation of carbamate ions. Tertiary
and severely hindered amines react by catalyzing the reaction of CO2 to bicarbonate
ions. Their reaction rate constant is at least an order of magnitude lower than that of the
unhindered primary and secondary amines. The FLEXSORB SE amine, a severely
hindered secondary amine, has a lower reaction rate constant. Amine basicity controls
the H2S capacity and the best selectivity is attained at short contact times. Therefore,
chemistry and kinetics teach that, for commercial absorbers, the best selectivity is
achieved for short contact times, low amine concentration and low operating
temperature.
The design of the absorber for selective H2S removal is therefore a compromise of
selectivity and H2S cleanup. The remainder of the design for a unit for selective H2S
removal is similar to the design of conventional amine units.
Services Offered
Start-up assistance.
Sheet 25 of 58
Major Parameters
Important parameters of EMRE Flexorb process are;
Inlet flow
150 MMSCFD
34 vol %
<10ppmv
1850 gpm
Rich loading
Re-boiler Duty
148 MMBtu/hr
Condenser Duty
74 MMBtu/hr
Cost of solvent
License fees
500,000 US$
DIAMETER ft
Amine Absorber
48
Amine Stripper
70
14
Utility Consumption
The EMRE Flexsorb Process requires the following utilities for operation
- Heating medium steam (or heat transfer fluid).
- Water for solvent dilution and make up water, the water should be oxygen free
and steam condensate or equivalent quality.
- Cooling water for lean solvent trim cooling before entering the absorber.
- Electricity
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 26 of 58
UTILITY
ESTIMATED
CONSUMPTION/TRAIN
148 MMBTU/hr
Catacarb Process
Scavengers are primarily used in the removal of small quantities of H2S from low
quantity feed gas streams (generally less than 200 ppmv). Removal of H2S
Sheet 27 of 58
Figure 5.2.2
Batch Process Using Liquid H2S Scavenging Agent
Considering the size of project this scheme was not considered for evaluation.
5.3
Acid gas removal by physical solvents is based on physical absorption of the acid gas
components. The solubility of a gas in any liquid is relatively low, therefore, a high sour
gas partial pressure is required, i.e. the higher the partial pressure of the sour gas, the
more readily it is adsorbed in the solvent, to achieve adequate acid gas loading and
removal. Thus, physical solvent processes are generally limited to applications requiring
bulk removal where the
acid gas partial pressures are high, greater than 50 psi. Due to a decrease in solubility of
the acid gases with increasing temperature, the adsorption is generally carried out at
lower temperatures and sometimes requires refrigeration for optimum design Solvent
regeneration is usually accomplished by flashing at lower pressure with only moderate
heat input. The lower heat requirements for solvent regeneration are due to the relatively
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 28 of 58
low heat of absorption. The basic process flow scheme of the process is described in
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3
Physical Solvent Process
The partial pressure of the acid gas in the feed is greater than 50 psi.
Sheet 29 of 58
SELEXOL PROCESS
FLUOR PROCESS
RECTISOL PROCESS
PURISOL PROCESS
This process is licensed by UOP. Natural gas containing large amount of CO2 and H2S
can be commercially treated using Selexol process .The process involve selective
absorption of the acid gas in selexol solvent (Polyethylene glycol Dimethyl ether) and
subsequent release at atmospheric pressure to repeat cycle.
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 30 of 58
Dehydrated feed gas is contacted with the Selexol solvent at high pressure where the
acid gas is contacted with the Selexol solvent at high pressure where the acid gas is
absorbed, thereby treating the natural gas to pipe line specifications. The solubility of
acid gas in the solvent is proportional to partial pressure of acid gas in the feed gas. The
solvent has approximately seven times greater solubility for H2S than CO2, permitting
preferential absorption for H2S.Since no chemical reaction takes palace the heat load is
small .The small heat rise across the absorber is due to heat of solution.
Although the selectivity is high some hydrocarbon is also absorbed .The solvent
preferentially absorbs heavier hydrocarbons. For this reason lean gases are particularly
suited for the process .The solvent is regenerated by a series of flashes as the pressure is
reduced on the liquid. No re-boil heat is required for regeneration of the solvent
minimizing the plant utilities. The flash gases from the first flash are usually sufficiently
rich in hydrocarbon to justify recompressing and recycling back to absorber. The Plant
treating H2S may require additional stripping of the solvent.
ENAR contacted UOP to know the applicability of DOW SLEXOL solvent for
UCH Gas Treatment process but UOP declined to offer giving high hydrocarbon
absorption as reason for not offering their technology.
This process, patented by the Fluor Corporation, utilizes anhydrous propylene carbonate
as its solvent. The temperature of the lean solvent to the absorber is usually well below
ambient and some method of refrigerating the solvent is usually necessary. It is
primarily intended for the removal of carbon dioxide from high-pressure gas streams.
The fluor Process becomes competitive when the partial pressure of CO2 in the feed gas
is above 75 psi( 5 bar).
Sheet 31 of 58
5.3.3
Rectisol Process
Developed by the Lurgi Company and Linde A.G. in Germany, this process involves the
use of methanol as the physical solvent. Because of the vapour pressure of methanol, the
process is normally applied at temperature ranging from 30oF to 100oF.
The
This process was also developed by Lurgi and licensed by the Ralph M.Parson
Company. The solvent used in this process is N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), a high
boiling point liquid. This process has a high absorptivity for H2S and appears to have
selectivity between H2S and CO2.
ENAR also contacted Lurgi Company and Linde A.G. to know the performance of
their RECTISOL and PURISOL process over UCH gas composition but their
response was not received. We have assumed that they would not like to supply the
technology and were not contacted.
5.4
By combining both a physical and chemical solvent, some vendors have developed
process that takes advantage of the benefits of both. The process with the longest track
record is the Sulfinol Process.
5.4.1 Sulfinol Process
The process, licensed by Shell, utilizes a hybrid solvent containing a physical solvent
(Sulfolane) and a chemical solvent (either MDEA [Sulfinol-M] or DIPA [Sulfinol-D]
and water. Sulfinol solvent is a mixture of water, amine and sulfolane. since the Sulfinol
solvent absorbs the acid gas by a combination of both physical mechanisms and
chemical reactions, the design relationship are very complex Design is done in house
under license from Shell.
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 32 of 58
According to the supplier this process is a regenerative amine process for removal of
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, carbonyl sulfide, mercaptans and organic
sulfide/disulfide from gas streams. The process was specifically developed for the
treatment of gas at elevated pressures; in particular natural gas. The addition of Sulfolane
increases the physical solubility in the solvent of the acid gas containment (H2S and
CO2) and this improves the efficiency of absorption process. The physical solubility of
mercaptans and organic sulphides / disulfides is also increased to a level whereby these
contaminants can be removed to low level.
Shell claims that the application of the Shell Sulfinol process technology ensures a
solvent that is robust to chemical degradation and therefore reduces operating problems
related to solvent quality and also purchaser allows independence of solvent supplier,
which ensures competitive solvent prices. Supplier also claims that their technology also
includes the application of high efficiently internals resulting in savings on contractor
costs and also their process is well-proven, reliable and robust process and their
accumulated operating experience of the last 30 years is built into each new design.
Services Offered
Training programs.
Major Parameters
150 MMSCFD
30.61 %
<10 ppmv
1940 gpm
Rich loading:
Sheet 33 of 58
Reboiler duty:
84.4 MMBtu/hr
Condenser Duty
19.89 MMBtu/hr
Solvent losses
Cost of Solvent
License fees
DIAMETER
ft (T/T)
ft
Amine Absorber
71.2
8.5
Amine Stripper
69
9.8
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Utility Consumption
The SHELL SULFINOL-M POCESS requires the following utilities for operation:
- Heating medium steam (or heat transfer fluid).
- Water for solvent dilution and make up water, the water should be oxygen free
and steam condensate or equivalent quality.
- Cooling water for lean solvent trim cooling before entering the absorber.
- Electricity
- Nitrogen or oxygen free blanket gas for solvent storage.
UTILITY
ESTIMATED
CONSUMPTION/TRAIN
85.37 MMBTU/hr
Electricity
1062 kW
Water make up
8.6 gpm
Sheet 34 of 58
General process details of SHELL SULFINOL-M process and reference list are attached
as Annexure VI
5.5
A fixed bed of solid particles can be used to remove acid gases through chemical
reactions. The iron sponge process, currently licensed by Connely-GPM Inc., is one of
the oldest solid bed H2S removal technologies with no interference by CO2
concentration. The SulfaTreat system is a more recent development using iron oxide on a
porous solid material. Unlike Iron Sponge, the SulfaTreat material is non-pyrophoric.
The SulfaTreat material has a higher capacity than Iron Sponge on a volumetric or mass
basis. However, the economic capacity (pounds of sulphur removed per dollar of
material) is somewhat lower than Iron Sponge. Generally SulfaTreat has a lower
pressure drop and it does not tend to bridge over. SulfaTreat beds are easier to change
out due to its particle size and shape. The uniform shape and size also allows for greater
utilization of capacity. Carryover of liquid hydrocarbon and methanol has minimal effect
on its hydrogen sulfide capacity. A typical solid bed system is shown in Figure5.6. In
solid bed absorption processes the gas stream must flow through a fixed bed of solid
particles that remove the acid gases and hold them in the bed. When the bed is saturated
with acid gases, the vessel must be removed from service and the bed regenerated or
replaced. Since the bed must be removed from service to be regenerated, some spare
capacity must be provided. The solid bed process uses the chemical reaction of ferric
oxide with H2S to sweeten gas stream. The reaction of H2S and ferric oxide produces
water and ferric sulfide as follows:
Fe2O3 + 3H2S
Fe2S3 + 3H2O
Sheet 35 of 58
Figure 5.6
Solid Bed Process For H2S Removal
The ferric oxide is impregnated on wood chips, which produces a solid bed with a large
ferric oxide surface area. Several grades of treated wood chips are available, based on
iron oxide content. The chips are contained in a vessel, and sour gas flows through the
bed and reacts with the ferric oxide. The ferric sulfide can be oxidized with air to
produce sulphur and regenerate the ferric oxide. The reaction for oxygen regeneration is
as follows:
2Fe2S3 + 3O2
S2 + 2O2
2Fe2O3 + 6S
2SO2
In some designs the solid bed may be operated with continuous regeneration by injecting
a small amount of air into the sour gas feed. In our case regeneration of bed either batchwise or continuous is not considered as it is uneconomical and if not properly controlled
may create an explosive mixture of air and gas.
Solid Bed absorption process is not economically viable due to high flow involved.
5.5.2 Johnson Matthey Catalyst
Johnson Matthey Catalysts manufacturers offer solid bed absorption process for
selectively removing H2S. They manufacture base and precious metal process catalysts,
fine chemicals and electrochemical products.
The Johnson Matthey catalysts company has refused to provide any catalytic
technology to meet UCH plant sales gas specification due to high sulphur content.
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 36 of 58
5.6
A typical 2-tower adsorption system that will sweeten and dehydrate an inlet gas stream
consists of two beds of molecular sieves, one in regeneration while the other in
operation. Sour gas enters the plant from a scrubber or separator and flows down
through the molecular sieve in Bed-1. Sweetened gas leaves the bottom of Bed-1, and
leaves the unit. A small portion of the sweetened gas is taken through the regeneration
gas heater and then flows upward through the molecular sieve in Bed-2. As the bed is
heated, H2S is driven off the regenerating bed (usually as the high concentration peak)
and diverted to a flare, incinerator or supplemental amine unit. After 1 hour at a
maximum bed outlet temperature 9600oF (315oC), the heater is by passed and the
regenerating bed is then cooled to a temperature close to the normal inlet gas
temperature.
Several solid bed vendors have been contacted but no satisfactory response was
received from them and also very little references is available about the use of solid
bed for removing of large quantity of H2S.
5.7
Sheet 37 of 58
Membrane technology has become a viable alternative for many CO2 removal
applications and offers the greatest potential in applications with high CO2 feed stream
concentration. In some cases, the combination of membrane technology with other
conventional processing technologies (amines) in a hybrid process may result in a
process that is more economical since it utilizes the strengths of each technology.
ENAR contacted following companies to offer membrane for UCH gas treatment
MEDAL Membrane Separation System
Membrane Technology And Research
Both companies refused to offer membrane and said that due to high sulphur
content their process are not economically viable for this application.
5.8
These processes are generally used for the removal of small quantities of H2S from gas
streams and involve the direct conversion of H2S to sulphur. No significant amount of
CO2 is removed. The direct conversion processes are typically based on a processing
scheme using oxidation-reduction chemistry to oxidize the H2S to elemental sulphur in
an alkaline solution containing oxygen carriers, such as the Stretfort process. Also of
significant commercial interest are the LO-CAT and SulFerox process.
5.8.1 LO-CAT Process
LO-CAT most recently sold U.S. Filter, utilizes an iron content of 250-3000 ppm so a
higher circulation rate is generally required. The lower iron content also allows for the
potential of bacterial growth in the solution. A biocide is required to keep the bacteria in
check. The operating pH range is 8.0-8.5. The sulphur formed is in the 25-micron range
compared to 150 micron for the SulFerox Process. The major equipment consists of a
contacting device, oxidizer, settler filter and make-up pumps.
ENAR contacted G.L Energies for LOCAT Process. The company suggested that
due to high partial pressure of CO2 this process is not feasible.
Sheet 38 of 58
The schematic of sulfint process is explained Figure 5.8.2 The H2S containing gas is
contacted with the aqueous, iron based, catalytic redox solution. The redox solution
absorbs H2S, converts it into solid elemental sulphur and is then regenerated by contact
with air. Sulfint HP operates at ambient temperature and can remove H2S down to very
low levels (1 ppm vol or below if needed).
In Sulfint HP the redox solution is filtered under high pressure to remove the sulphur just
after having been in contact with the gas. According to the supplier this key
improvement avoids the foaming/plugging problems usually encountered with other
redox processes.
FIGURE 5.8.2
PROSERNAT SULFINT HP PROCESS
Sheet 39 of 58
It may be noted that after detailed evaluation and exchange of several comments
the licensor has confirmed that Sulfint HP,redox technology for the selective
removal and conversion of H2S is not applicable due to high partial pressure of CO2
in the treated gas. They have no other process available for required purpose.
5.8.3 Crystatech CrystaSulf
CrystaSulf is a non-aqueous sulphur recovery technology that can be used for direct
treatment of gas streams containing H2S. The CrystaSulf solvent components are highboiling organics in which sulphur has a high solubility. The solvents catalyze the
reaction of H2S with S02 to form elemental sulphur that remains dissolved in the solvent
until removed via crystallization and filtration.
The Crystatech claims that their process represents a breakthrough in small- and
medium-scale sulphur removal applications. CrystaSulf can directly treat sour natural
gas at pressure, thus providing one-step treatment, an industry goal that has proved
elusive in the past.
Typical process flow scheme of Crystasulf process is shown in Figure 5.8.3 Sour gas is
heated before entering the absorber where it contacts the lean Crystasulf solution where
H2S reacts with dissolved S02 to form dissolved sulphur. Lean solution flow rates are
typically 20-50 gpm/LT/D (gpm per long ton of sulphur removed per day). Sweet gas
exits the absorber at 140-150F. Gas exiting the absorber passes through a solution
recovery cooler and separator to recover vaporized solution components.
Sheet 40 of 58
FIGURE 5.8.3
Rich solution flows from the absorber bottom to a flash vessel. The small amount of
sweet flash gas is produced from the flash tank. This flash gas is recycled to the absorber
to eliminate gas shrinkage. Liquid exiting the flash tank is sent to a crystallizer where its
temperature is reduced to 105F, causing sulphur to crystallize from solution. The excess
solution overflows the crystallizer via a weir and flows by gravity to a heated solution
surge tank. Lean solvent in the surge tank is heated and then pumped back to the
absorber
As the slurry density increases, a batch filtration process is initiated, and a slipstream of
the slurry from the bottom of the crystallizer is sent to a filter with a small positive
displacement pump. The slurry is 15-20 wt% solids and flows from the crystallizer to an
indexing-belt pressure filter. Filtrate is sent to the surge tank. The elemental sulphur cake
contains particles of approximately 50-1000 ~m diameter. The sulphur will be rinsed
with a wash solvent followed by water to
Sheet 41 of 58
remove solution components from the sulphur product. The produced sulphur is
nominally 90+ ~/0 ~sulphur wet basis and 98+ wt% sulphur dry basis. The
crystallization section is the only place where solid sulphur is present.
Reacted SO2 is replenished by burning sulphur in a sulphur burner system. The SO2laden gas stream is sent to the SO2 absorber, where the circulating lean solution contacts
the gas stream and removes the SO2 and converts it into a stable intermediate form. The
SO2-rich solution then returns to the main CrystaSulf loop.
A small portion of the inlet H2S may be converted to salt by-products during operation
of the process. Accumulated salts (if they develop) can be removed from the bulk
CrystaSulf solvent using a proprietary removal process, which operates on a small
slipstream of CrystaSulf solution. The salts removal process operates intermittently.
Salts from the salts tank are captured in a sock filter. The sock filter is periodically
cleaned with water, which causes the salts to dissolve into the water, and the resulting
salt water (sulphates) is blown down as necessary. The salts and water blow down
stream will be disposed of with the other wastewater streams produced on site.
Major Parameters
Inlet flow
Sulphur recovered
11.2 LTPD
559 gpm
300 MMSCFD
< 10 ppmv
Utility Consumption
Sheet 42 of 58
ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION
24.23 MMBtu/hr
4.47 MMBtu/hr
Electricity
435.5 kW
6.0
DEHYDRATION PROCESSES
The important technologies available for the reduction of water content in the gas
streams are
Glycol Dehydration Process
Solid Bed Dehydration
For Glycol Dehydration process in-house calculation has been carried out while for Solid
Bed dehydration and Hybrid process different vendors have been contacted the detailed
description of the evaluation process are summarized below.
6.1
GLYCOL DEHYDRATION
Simulation based on Tri Ethylene Glycol Solvent has been done by ENAR and
simulation results are attached as Annexure VII
Sheet 43 of 58
Major Parameters
The important considerations of the simulation are;
- Inlet flow
150 MMSCFD
110-125 lb/MMSCF
7 lb/MMSCF
28 gpm
- Re-boiler duty
2 MMBtu/hr
- Reboiler temperature
399 F
- TEG losses
0.06 gal/MMSCF
Glycol dehydration is an absorption process, where the water vapour in the gas stream
becomes dissolved in a relatively pure glycol liquid solvent stream. The water can be
easily boiled out of the glycol by the addition of heat. This step is called
regeneration and enables the glycol to be recovered for reuse in absorbing addition
water with minimal loss of glycol.
A typical glycol process is shown in Figure- 6.1. The wet gas enters the bottom of the
contactor and contacts the richest glycol containing water in solution just before the
glycol leaves the column. The gas encounters leaner and leaner glycol as it rises through
the contactor.
Sheet 44 of 58
Figure 6.1
Glycol Process For Dehydration
At each successive tray the leaner glycol is able to absorb additional amounts of water
vapour from the gas. The counter-current flow in the contactor makes it possible for the
gas to transfer a significant amount of water to the glycol and still approach equilibrium
with the leanest glycol concentration. The glycol will absorb heavy hydrocarbon liquids
present in the gas stream. Thus, before the gas enters the contactor it should pass through
a separate inlet gas scrubber to remove liquid and solid impurities that may carry over
from upstream vessels or condense in lines leading from the vessels.
Dry gas from the top of the gas/glycol contactor flows through an external gas/glycol
heat exchanger. This cools the incoming dry glycol to increase its absorption capacity
and decrease its tendency to flash in the contactor and be lost to the dry gas. In some
system, the gas passes over a glycol-cooling coil inside the contactor instead of the
external gas/glycol heat exchanger.
Sheet 45 of 58
The rich or wet glycol from the base of the contactor passes through a reflux
condensers to the glycol/glycol pre-heater where the rich glycol is heated by the hot lean
glycol. After heating, the glycol flows to a low pressure separator where the entrained
gas and any liquid hydrocarbons present are removed. The gas from the
glycol/condensate separator can be used for fuel gas.
The wet glycol from the separator flows through a sock filter to remove solids and a
charcoal filter to absorb small amounts of hydrocarbons that may build up in the
circulating glycol.
The glycol then flows through the glycol/glycol heat exchanger to the still column
mounted on the regenerator, which operates at essentially atmospheric pressure. As the
glycol falls through the packing in the still column, it is heated by the vapours being
boiled off the liquids in the re-boiler. The falling liquid gets hotter and hotter. The gas
flashing from this liquid is mostly water vapour with a small amount of glycol. Thus, as
the liquid falls through the packing it becomes leaner and leaner in water. Before the
vapours leave the top of the still they encounter the reflux condenser, where the cold rich
glycol from the contactor cools them, condensing the glycol vapours and approximately
25 to 50% of the rising water vapour. This develops a reflux liquid stream, which
reduces the glycol losses to atmosphere to almost zero.
The water vapour exiting the top of the still contains a small amount of volatile hydrocarbons and is normally vented to atmosphere at a safe location.
The lean glycol flows from the re-boiler to a surge tank, which could be constructed as
an integral part of the re-boiler. The surge tank must be large enough to allow for
thermal expansion of the glycol and to allow for reasonable time between additions of
glycol. The lean glycol from the atmospheric surge tank is then pumped back to the
contactor to complete the cycle.
6.1.1 Cost Estimates
6.1.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate (CAPEX)
The total supply cost of glycol dehydration plant is 2.533 Million US$
Sheet 46 of 58
The operating cost of Glycol Dehydration Plant has also been estimated based on the
information provided by vendors and in house data. The annual operating cost for 150
MMSCFD glycol dehydration plant is as follows.
6.2
13100 US$/yr
33600 US$/yr
1200 US$/yr
There are several solid desiccants which posses the physical characteristic to adsorb
water form natural gas. These desiccants generally are used in dehydration systems
consisting of two or more towers and associated regeneration equipment. There are
several solid desiccants which posses the physical characteristic to adsorb water form
natural gas. These desiccants generally are used in dehydration systems consisting of
two or more towers and associated regeneration equipment. One tower is on-stream
adsorbing water from the gas while the other tower is being regenerated and cooled. The
towers are switched before the on-stream tower becomes water saturated Schematic of
solid bed dehydration is given in Figure 6.2
Sheet 47 of 58
Figure 6.2
Solid Desiccant Process For Dehydration
The continuous process requires two (or more) vessels with one on-line removing water
while the other is being regenerated. Generally a bed is designed to be on-line in
adsorption for 8 to 24 hours. When the bed is taken off-line, the water is removed by
heating the bed. The regeneration gas used to heat the bed is usually a slipstream of dry
process gas. The regeneration gas is returned to the process after it has been cooled and
the free water removed.
Gas flow during adsorption is typically down flow. This allows higher gas velocities
(thus smaller diameter towers) since bed fluidization is avoided. Regeneration gas flow
is up flow during the heating cycle. In that way, any residual water left on the desiccant
will be at the top of the bed and will not affect the effluent dew-point when adsorption is
resumed. In addition up flow heating helps to strip any contaminants from the top of the
bed extending desiccant life. Regeneration gas flow during the cooling cycle may be up
flow if the gas is completely free of water.
Sheet 48 of 58
The total supply cost of Solid Bed Dehydration system is 4.225 Million US$
The operating cost for solid bed dehydration process has also been estimated based on
the information provided by vendors and in house data. The annual operating cost for
150 MMSCFD solid desiccant dehydration plant is as follows.
Desiccant
76500 US$/yr
2100 US$/yr
43500 US$/yr
Major Parameters
The important parameters of the Solid Bed Dehydration Process (for 150 MMSCFD feed
gas) are;
-
Inlet flow
100 lb/MMSCF
6.9 lb/MMSCF
30.5 F
Regeneration duty
2.25 MMBtu/hr
Heat of desorption
5.76 %
14 hr
7 hr
150 MMSCFD
Sheet 49 of 58
7.0
7.1
From the detailed description of Acid Gas removal processes and further M/S ENAR
several correspondence with some technology licensor it is concluded that only
following acid gas removal processes should be taken into account for UCH plant gas
treatment.
Generic Solvent
o MDEA with mixture of primary solvent
Proprietary Techonolgy
o UOP Amine Guard Process
o EMRE Flexsorb Process
Sulfinol process
Sheet 50 of 58
Size of Plant
Sheet 51 of 58
COMPARISON TABLE
Technical Comparison of Different Processes For Acid Gas Removal
Generic MDEA
Huntsman MDEA
Dow
Shell Sulfinol-M
Flexsorb (EMRE)
Crystasulf
INLET CONDITION
TEMP (F)
105
100
105
105
105.08
105
105
80
PRESSURE (PSIG)
790
786
785.3
790
826.14
800
800
800
FLOW (MMSCFD)
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
300
TREATED GAS
TEMP (F)
120
132
119.3
120
109.4
110
N/P
N/P
PRESSURE (PSIG)
783
776.6
784.3
788
820.6
795.3
N/P
N/P
FLOW (MMSCFD)
135.4
133.57
130.5
139.5
126.9
127.16
N/P
300
MOL. WEIGHT
28.71
28.7716
28.14
29.15
27.8
NA
N/P
N/P
5117.2
4892.07
4581.64
5568.8
4271.6
5716.54
N/P
N/P
0.04
39.79
0.03
0.0348
0.139
0.08
N/P
BTU/SCF
460
450-500
11.2 LTPD
CIRCULATION
LEAN AMINE CIRCULATION (gpm)
10 ppmv
Sulphur Recovered
1770
1800
2200
1800
1617
1998
1850
4.50E-03
0.005
0.0054
0.005
2.98E-03
N/P
N/P
0.44
0.580
0.4531
0.301
0.44
N/P
N/P
110
110
110
110
109.4
N/P
N/P
143
153.82
155
143
186.8
N/P
N/P
MAKEUP
N/P
0.012 gpm
0.012
N/P
20-30% of total
0.044 gpm
N/P
132
96
inventory / yr
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION
_
ABSORBER
DIA (INCH)
114
LENGTH (FT)
30
46
NO OF TRAYS
20
144
150
123.6/90
102
30
N/P
71.2
48
48
10
4 /packed column
25
14
Packed Column
Sheet 52 of 58
SS
Nutter trays with 2'
spacing
SS
N/P
N/P
30" tray spacing/
CS
3mm SS cladding
AMINE STRIPER
DIA (INCH)
132
168
138
162/119
118
124
168
HEIGHT (FT)
58
46
50
N/P
69
76
70
18
20
19.8
20
28
NO OF TRAYS
MATERIAL
OTHER SPECIFIICATION
SS
Nutter trays With 2'
spacing
20
SS
20/packed column
N/P
30" tray spacing/
1.5" metal Pall rings
CS
3mm SS cladding
above
_
_
DUTY OF EQUIPMENT
REBOILER DUTY
MMBTU/H
95.8
121.21
123.56
90.4
84.36
139.5
148
36.2
38.82
39.95
35.5
19
57.7
74
77.2
58.72
74.47
69.34
55.88
59.2
65
43.3
75.15
67.05
50.64
24.59
73.9
75
N/P
1.723 US$/lb
0.907 US$/lb
N/P
2.041 $ / lb
N/P
REFLUX CONDENSER
MMBTU/H
LEAN/RICH EXCHANGER
MMBTU/H
AMINE COOLER
MMBTU/H
COSTS
SOLVENT COST
150 MMSCFD
LISCENSE FEE
N/P
No license fee
No license fee
N/P
Sheet 53 of 58
650000 US$
500000 US$
N/P
7.1.2
Conclusion
The above short listed processes have been compared as follows:
Generic Solvent
Pure MDEA solvent would not work due to high partial pressure of CO2. Rich amine
loading in generic MDEA is high which results in excessive corrosion of downstream
equipment of absorber and further unavailability of technical support is a major issue.
The mixture of tertiary and some primary or secondary solvent was tried. The rich
loading has to be kept low to avoid corrosion which results in higher circulation. Since
the solvent is non-proprietary, no supplier will offer any technical services. Considering a
large plant it is required that the solvent should be backed with technical support.
Proprietary Formulated Solvent
Formulated MDEA of JEFFTREAT and INEOS and DOW meet the required
specification of H2S content and heating value. The companies do not disclose the
composition of the solvent. The three solvents are all formulated with the addition of
promoter for selective H2S removal. Rich amine loading is somewhat high but due to the
presence of some proprietary corrosion inhibitor and antifoaming agent, supplier claims
that their solvents are robust and less corrosive. Many reference plants are available and
vendors and suppliers offer guarantee and complete technical assistance. The solvents
have also been tried in the existing plant and except for some initial problem they
performed reasonably well.
Parameter
HUNTSMAN
INEOS
DOW
Lean Amine
circulation
1767 gpm
2200 gpm
1800 gpm
Rich Amine
Loading
Regenerator
Reboiler duty
121.2 MMBtu/hr
123.56 MMBtu/hr
90.4 MMBtu/hr
Sheet 54 of 58
Proprietary Technology
For proprietary technology, two processes have been considered i.e. UOP Amine Guard
and EMRE Flexorb. Both processes are proprietary. The data is not optimized and the
duties and flows are more than that using proprietary solvent. These processes require
high capital investment. Utility consumption is also high and few plants are available
using their process.
Parameter
EMRE FLEXORB
40.94 vol%
34 vol%
1998 gpm
1850 gpm
139.5 MMBtu/hr
148 MMBtu/hr
74 MMBtu/hr
35.5 MMBtu/hr
48 ft LT (T/T) 11 ft ID
48 ft LT (T/T) 8 ft ID
76 ft LT (T/T) 10.3 ft ID
70 ft LT (T/T) 14 ft ID
License fees
650,000 US$
500,000 US$
OGDCL will have to get the plant designed by the companies involved and the solvent
supply will be from the technology companies. Thus, OGDCL will be dependent on a
single supplier which could pose supply and other administrative problems.
Chemical/Physical Solvent
The technology supplier Shell is world renowned. It offers Shell Sulfinol Process for this
project. The solvent circulation rate in Shell Sulfinol Process is somewhat lower than
other processes. Heating and cooling duties are also low. Use of SHELL technology
allows client independence of solvent supplier which ensures competitive solvent prices.
UCH II Gas Field Development Project
Sheet 55 of 58
Reference plants of Shell Sulfinol are also available. However, no plant treats such a
high level of CO2.
7.1.3
Recommendation
The detailed comparison of different gas sweetening processes shows that formulated
amine processes of HUNTSMAN, INEOS, DOW and SHELL appears competitive. We
recommend that formulated amine processes are good for UCH application. However,
The plant designed should have enough flexibility to handle any of the above
recommended solvents with minimum changes in the plant, so that OGDCL will have the
provision to change the solvent in future. In addition, following parameters will have to
be considered during the design of acid gas removal unit for UCH II plant.
Design should include a coalescer filter in between inlet separator and contactor
tower.
10 micron absolute cartridges filter to be used before carbon bed. Spare filter should
also be provided.
Carbon bed should have carbon pores compatible with MDEA solvent and should be
8x30 mesh granular activated carbon.
The Amine flash drum should be sized for 15 20 min. residence time and provided
with skimming facility.
Post weld heat treatment is recommended for all carbon steel equipment including
piping exposed to amine.
Tubes SS
Internals SS
Internal SS
Tubes SS
Impeller SS
SS
Doc. No. 4985-GA-8302-0
Sheet 56 of 58
7.2
Water to be used for making Amine Solution should have good quality.
Following are general specification of the amine make up water. This should be
evaluated.
Total Dissolved Solids
<
Total Hardness
<
Chlorides
<
2 ppm
Sodium
<
3 ppm
Iron
<
10 ppm
100 ppm
3 grains/gallon
Solid Bed
Reliability
Most proven technology for gas Normally used for small units and
dehydration. Maximum number of for
very
low
dew
point
plants in Pakistan.
requirement. Not generally used
for pipeline specs. A very small
number of plants presently
operating in Pakistan.
Size
Technical
Support
Availability
Contamination
Operating
Complexity
Sheet 57 of 58
7.2.1
Recommendation
After reviewing the above comparison of Glycol and Solid bed dehydration process we
understand that the Glycol Dehydration process is the best option for UCH application
due to the low CAPEX and OPEX and availability of technical support and further M/s
OGDCL previous experience of the operation of Glycol Dehydration Plant.
Sheet 58 of 58
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-I
Process Flow Diagram and Material
Balance of Typical Amine System
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-II
INEOS/Gas SPEC SS Solvent
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-III
HUNTSMAN JEFFTREAT MP Solvent
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-IV
UOP Amine Guard Process and
Reference List
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-V
Reference List of EMRE FLEXORB
Process
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-VI
Shell Sulfinol Process and Reference List
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-VII
Process Flow Diagram and Material
Balance of Glycol Dehydration Process
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-A
Raw Water Analysis
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-B
Condensate Analysis
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-C
Gas Wells Data
Volume-2A (Process)
Annexure-D
NEQS Data
The Gazette
of Pakistan
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
PART-II
Statutory Notification (S.R.O)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
(1289)
[4138(2000)/Ex.GAZ]
1290
(1)
[PART-II]
S. No.
Parameter
Existing
Standards
Revised
Standards
Into
Inland
Waters
Into
Sewage
Treatment (5)
Into
Sea ( )
1.
Temperature or
Temperature Increase *
pH value (H+) .
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)5 at 200C (1)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) (1) .. .
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) .. .
Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic compounds (as
phenol)
Chloride (as C1- )
400C
3oC
3oC
3oC
6-10
6-9
6-9
6-9
80
80
250
80**
150
150
400
400
150
3500
200
3500
400
3500
200
3500
10
10
10
10
0.1
1000
0.1
1000
0.3
1000
0.3
SC***
20
2
20
10
1.0
20
10
1.0
20
10
1.0
20
600
1.0
40
0.15
600
1.0
40
0.15
1000
1.0
40
0.15
SC***
1.0
40
0.15
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Fluoride (as F- )
Cyanide (as CN-) total ..
An-ionic detergents (as
MBAS) (2)
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphide (S2-)
Ammonia (NH3)
Pesticides (3)
1
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
2
Cadmium (4) .. .
Chromium (trivalent
and hexavalent (4).. .
Cooper (4) .. .
Lead (4) .. .
Mercury (4) .. .
Selenium (4)
Nickel (4) .. .
Silver (4)
Total toxic metals .. .
Zinc .. .
Arsenic (4) .. .
Barium (4) .. .
Iron .. .
Manganese .. .
Boron (4) .. .
Chlorine .. .
1291
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
6.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
8.0
1.5
6.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
8.0
1.5
6.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
8.0
1.5
6.0
1.0
Explanations:
1. Assuming minimum dilution 1:10 on discharge, lower ratio would attract
progressively stringent standards to be determined by the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency. By 1:10 dilution means, for example that for each one cubic
meter of treated effluent, the recipient water body should have 10 cubic meter of
water for dilution of this effluent.
2. Methylene Blue Active Substances; assuming surfactant as biodegradable.
3. Pesticides include herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.
4. Subject to total toxic metals discharge should not exceed level given at S. N. 25.
5. Applicable only when and where sewage treatment is operational and BOD5=80mg/I
is achieved by the sewage treatment system.
1292
6.
Provided discharge is not at shore and not within 10 miles of mangrove or other
important estuaries.
The effluent should not result in temperature increase of more than 30C at the
edge of the zone where initial mixing and dilution take place in the receiving
body. In case zone is not defined, use 100 meters from the point of discharge.
**
Note:______ 1.
2.
(2)
Annex-II
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
INDUSTRIAL GASEOUS EMISSION (mg/Nm3, UNLESS
OTHERWISE DEFINED).
S. No.
Parameter
1
1.
Smoke
2.
Particulate malter
(1)
Source of Emission
3
Smoke opacity not to
exceed
Hydrogen
Chloride
Revised
Standards
4
40% or 2
Ringlemann Scale
5
40% or 2
Ringlemann Scale
or equivalent
smoke number
300
500
200
300
500
300
500
500
400
400
Oil fired
Coal fired
Cement Kilns
Existing
Standards
Any
1
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
2
Chlorine
Hydrogen Fluoride
Hydrogen Sulphide
Sulphur Oxides (2) (3)
Carbon Monoxide
Lead
Mercury
Cadmium
Arsenic
Copper
Antimony
Zinc
Oxides of Nitrogen
(3)
3
Any
Any
Any
Sulfuric
acid/Sulphonic
acid plants
Other Plants
except power
Plants operating
on oil and coal
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Nitric acid
manufacturing
unit.
1293
150
150
10
150
150
10
400
1700
800
50
10
20
20
50
20
200
800
50
10
20
20
50
20
200
400
3000
400
-
400
600
1200
Other plants
except power
plants operating
on oil or coal:
Gas fired
Oil fired
Coal fired
Explanations:1. Based on the assumption that the size of the particulate is 10 micron
or more.
2. Based on 1 percent Sulphur content in fuel oil. Higher content of
Sulphur will case standards to be pro-rated.
3. In respect of emissions of Sulphur dioxide and Nitrogen oxides, the
power plants operating on oil and coal as fuel shall in addition to
National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) specified above,
comply with the following standards:-
PART-II]
Sulphur Dioxide
Sulphur Dioxide Background levels Micro-gram per cubic meter (ug/m3) Standards.
Background Air
Quality (SO2
Basis)
Annual
Average
Max.
24-hours
Interval
Criterion I
Max. SO2
Emission
(Tons per Day
Per Plant)
Criterion II
Max. Allowable
ground level
increment to
ambient (ug/m3)
(One year Average)
Unpolluted
Moderately
Polluted*
Low
High
Very Polluted**
<50
<200
500
50
50
100
>100
200
400
>400
500
100
100
50
10
10
* For intermediate values between 50 and 100 ug/m3 linear interpolations should be used. **
No projects with Sulphur dioxide emissions will be recommended.
B. Nitrogen Oxide
Ambient air concentrations of Nitrogen oxides, expressed as NOx should not be exceed the
following:Annual Arithmetic Mean
100ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
Emission level for stationary source discharge before missing with the atmosphere,
should be maintained as follows:For fuel fired steam generators as Nanogram (100-gram) per joule of heat input:
Liquid fossil fuel
Solid fossil fuel ..
Lignite fossil fuel
Note:-
130
300
260
Dilution of gaseous emissions to bring them to the NEQS limiting value is not
permissible through excess air mixing blowing before emitting into the
environment.
Rev. 0
Project
Client
: Oil
Prepared by
Checked by
Approved by
Revised by
2
1
: AI
: MHQ/FS
: NMC
: DF
06-07-2010
15-06-2010
02-03-009
Rev.
Description of Revision
Date
Hydraulic Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR. NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
2.1
2.2
Flow Rates
2.3
2.4
Gas Composition
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
10
3.5
11
3.6
12
3.7
13
3.8
14
3.9
15
3.10
16
3.11
17
3.12
18
3.13
19
3.14
20
3.15
21
4.0
CONCLUSION
22
5.0
23
3.0
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 2 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
1.0
INTRODUCTION
OGDCL intends to develop the field by installing all the surface facilities
including gas gathering pipeline network, gas purification plant, gas
commissioning system and gas transport pipeline etc. 15 wells will be drilled
for the complete development of UCH-II field. All the wells will produce gas
having different BTU value.
As a part of the feed package, Hydraulic Analysis of the gas flow lines from
well site to the gathering system at Plant and Transport Pipeline have been
carried out for establishing the line sizes of flow lines and transport pipeline.
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 3 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
2.0
2.1
2.2
K-02
9.25
K-03
11.33
K-06
14.76
K-07
19.95
K-08
19.73
K-09
17.19
K-10
11.69
K-11
4.08
K-12
6.13
K-13
2.70
K-14
2.20
K-15
4.87
K-16
7.51
K-17
5.56
K-18
4.57
Flow Rates
Following maximum flow rates are considered for sizing of flow lines;
Well No.
4985-GA-8301
Flow Rate
( MMSCFD )
K-02
20.8
K-03
20.8
K-06
9.9
K-07
19.8
K-08
19.8
Rev.0
Sheet 4 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
2.3
K-09
16.7
K-10
18.8
K-11
20.5
K-12
20.8
K-13
17.8
K-14
20.6
K-15
16.2
K-16
20.8
K-17
17.9
K-18
17.9
2.4
Gas Composition
For the purpose of hydraulic analysis the gas composition has been taken
from Will Bros fluid flow study for UCH-I Gas Gathering System as tabulated
below.
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 5 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
Please note that the gas composition data provided in the Appendix VIII of
the ITB, do not produce the liquid and therefore can not be used for the
purpose of hydraulic analysis.
TABLE-1
Components
Western Lobes
Central Lobes
Eastern Lobe
0.0218
0.0218
0.0602
CO2
43.2177
43.2177
21.8686
N2
19.6078
19.6078
7.8923
C1
30.8688
30.8688
62.2084
C2
0.7484
0.7484
1.8849
C3
0.2825
0.2825
0.0.5118
iC4
0.0683
0.0683
0.1284
nC4
0.0822
0.0.0822
0.1329
iC5
0.0288
0.0.0288
0.0952
nC5
0.0075
0.0075
0.0.0685
C6
0.4082
0.4082
0.4937
C7
0.0173
0.0173
0.0172
C8
0.0173
0.0173
0.0172
C9+
0.2927
0.2927
0.2927
H2O
4.2768
4.2768
4.2765
H2S
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 6 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
2.5
0.5 Btu/hr.ft.F
Pipe conductivity
28 Btu/hr.ft.F
0.393 Btu/hr.ft.F
Flowline Profile
The straight lines have been considered for estimation of pressure drop and
velocities. EPCC contractor shall verify line size after considering ground
profiles at detail engineering stage.
2.7
2.8
2.9
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 7 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.0
3.1
Pressure drop
10 flow line
Psi
Pressure drop
12 flow line
Psi
34
14
08
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flow lines have been compared with
erosional velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low
enough when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is
presented hereunder:
Flowline of K-02
Average Mixture Velocity (ft/s)
Erosional Velocity (ft/s)
In 8 Flow
line
7.01
35.23
In 10 Flow
line
4.25
34.81
In 12 flow
line
3.056
34.78
WAVE, INTERMITTENT
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 8 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.2
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
40
15
08
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-03
In 10
In 12
Flowline
Flowline
7.0
4.4
3.16
35.67
35.2
35.39
line
Froth
Froth
Froth
Wave
Wave
Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 9 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.3
Pressure drop in 10
flow Line Psi
Pressure drop in
12 flow line Psi
13
08
06
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-06
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
Flowline
3.18
2.01
1.402
39.5
39.5
39
Froth, Straightfied
Slug
Wave, Intermittent
Wave
Wave, Intermittent
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 10 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.4
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
51
18
09
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
Flowline of K-07
In 8 Flow
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
7.1
4.3
3.07
41.6
41.6
40.9
WAVE
WAVE
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 11 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.5
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
51
20
06
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-08
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
6.48
4.39
2.85
39.4
41.13
39.8
Froth, Wave
Intermittent, Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 12 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.6
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
33
13
08
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-09
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
5.9
3.69
2.56
41.35
41
42.11
line
Froth, Wave
Froth, Wave
Froth, Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 13 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.7
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
26
10
05
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
Flowline of K-10
In 8 Flow
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
6.3
2.771
35.0
34.8
34.8
WAVE
Wave,
Intermittent,
Ann-Mist
Selected Line Size
Based upon the afore-going result of hydraulic analysis line size 10 Dia has
been selected.
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 14 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.8
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
14
06
05
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-11
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
6.43
4.07
2.85
34.7
34.64
34.6
Wave, Froth
Froth,
Wave,
Annular
Mist
Selected Line Size
Based upon the afore-going result of hydraulic analysis line size 10 Dia has
been selected.
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 15 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.9
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
34
11
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-12
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
8.2
4.37
3.0
35
34.52
34.5
Wave,
Annr Mist
Selected Line Size
Based upon the afore-going result of hydraulic analysis line size 10 Dia has
been selected.
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 16 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.10
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flowline
12 flowline
Psi
Psi
Psi
13
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
Flowline of K-13
In 8
In 10
In 12
Flowline
Flowline
Flowline
6.52
3.59
35
34.0
Wave,Annular
Mist,Intermit
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 17 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.11
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline Psi
09
05
04
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8
In 10
In 12
Flowline
Flowline
Flowline
6.49
4.11
2.8
34.37
34.35
34.39
Flowline of K-14
Wave, Froth
Wave, Froth
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 18 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.12
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline
in 10 flow Line
12 flow line
Psi
Psi
Psi
14
06
04
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8
In 10
In 12
Flow line
Flowline
Flowline
5.287
3.35
2.38
34.48
34.46
34.48
Flowline of K-15
Wave, Intermittent
Straightfied, Intermittent
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 19 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.13
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline Psi
27
11
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8 Flow
Flowline of K-16
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
6.91
4.34
3.02
34.8
34.63
34.6
Flow Pattern
in 10 Line
Annular Mist,Wave
Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 20 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.14
Pressure drop
Pressure drop
in 8 flowline Psi
in 10 flowLine Psi
12 flowline Psi
16
07
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
In 8
In 10
In 12
Flowline
Flowline
Flowline
5.60
3.69
2.581
34.2
34.8
35
Flowline of K-17
Wave
Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 21 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
3.15
Pressure drop in 10
Pressure drop
Psi
13
06
04
Erosional Velocity
The actual velocities of mixture in the flowlines are compared with erosional
velocities as per API-14E. It is observed that mixture velocities are low enough
when compared with erosional velocities. The comparison is presented
hereunder:
Flowline of K-18
In 8 Flow
line
In 10
In 12
Flowline
flowline
5.68
3.672
2.5
34.48
34.76
34.7
Wave
Wave
4985-GA-8301
Rev.0
Sheet 22 of 24
Hydraulic Analysis
4.0
CONCLUSION
Following line sizes have been selected based on pressure drop and erosional
velocities. The summary of PIPESYS for selected lines are attached in
Annexure-1.
4985-GA-8301
Well No.
Line Size
(Selected)
Pressure Drop
(psi)
K-02
10
14
K-03
10
15
K-06
13
K-07
12
09
K-08
12
06
K-09
10
13
K-10
10
10
K-11
10
06
K-12
10
11
K-13
13
K-14
09
K-15
10
06
K-16
10
11
K-17
10
07
K-18
13
Rev.0
Sheet 23 of 24
Rev. 1
Project:
Client:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
Revised by:
2
11
0
Rev.
AI
FS
PR
DF
Description of Revision
06-07-2010
15-06-2010
14-07-2009
Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
SEPARATION DISTANCES ............................................................................................................................... 7
EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 7
BUILDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
LEAK SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................. 7
IGNITION SOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 8
LIQUID SPILLS AND DRAINS .......................................................................................................................... 8
VENT STACK................................................................................................................................................... 8
Sheet 2 of 20
INTRODUCTION
This document describes the specification for general safety and fire
protection of the facility and personnel.
This Specification outlines the minimum requirements for Fire Protection
Systems, Personnel Safety and Plant Security Equipment for UCH-II Gas
Field Development Project.
This document also outlines the general safety and fire protection philosophy,
applicable codes, specifications and regulations and plant layout
considerations to be complied with.
The Contractor shall be responsible for the complete design, supply,
fabrication, installation and commissioning of all fire and gas detection and
fire protection systems and personnel safety and plant security equipment.
The Contractor shall carry out detailed calculations for water application rates,
pump sizes, fire main sizes and water storage capacity and submit to Company
for approval before fire protection equipment is placed on order or further
work is progressed on the detailed design of the system.
The Contractor shall be responsible for the supply of all fire fighting agents,
chemicals and appliances including, as appropriate, foam concentrate, charged
fire extinguishers etc. The quantities of the above items shall be sufficient for
all commissioning tests, initial charge and spares. The commissioning tests for
all firefighting systems shall be carried to the requirements of applicable
NFPA codes and operational tests of spray systems shall be performed to
check spray coverage, operation of control equipment and performance of
firewater pumps.
Sheet 3 of 20
Safeguarding of personnel
Safeguarding of the environment
Safeguarding of plant.
There are essentially two main methods of safeguarding against hazards from
the plant. The first is to reduce the possibility of loss of containment of
hazardous process fluids i.e. to prevent leaks, which could give rise to fire,
explosions or pollution. The second is to minimize the effects of loss of
containment and possible fires, explosions and spillages.
Possible loss of containment is minimized by control of the design,
construction and operating phases of the project. This control is achieved by
implementing QA and QC procedures during the design and construction
phases and by developing safe working practices and procedures and
enforcing their use by way of audits and ongoing training.
Minimizing the effect of loss of containment is achieved by the following
main means:
Sheet 4 of 20
3.1
Regulations
3.2
3.3
Part 1 Electrical
Part 3 Refining
Part 4 Drilling and Production - Onshore Operations
Part 6 Pipelines
Part 15 Area Classification
3.4
NFPA 10
NFPA 11
NFPA 13
NFPA 14
NFPA 15
NFPA 16
System.
NFPA 20
NFPA 24
and their
Appurtenances
NFPA 30
Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
NFPA 58
Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied
Petroleum Gases
NFPA 497 Recommended Practice for the classification of flammable
liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations of
Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas.
NFPA 1221 Standard for the installation, Maintenance, and use of
Emergency Services Communications Systems.
RP 521
Sheet 5 of 20
RP 2004
RP 2021
STD 2510
(LPG)
Publ 2510A
Operation of
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Project Specifications
The approved Project Specifications shall be followed for piping systems, pipe
supports, instrumentation packages, electrical cabling, etc., as applicable.
Sheet 6 of 20
4.1
General
The main principles to be maintained in achieving a safe plant layout in
conjunction with an efficient and economically operable plant are:
4.2
Separation Distances
Separation distances between plant areas or equipment items shall be in
conformance with:
4.3
Equipment
Process and storage/loading areas shall be separated from each other and from
utility areas, thereby reducing large bore hydrocarbon pipework passing
through utility areas, as far as practicable.
Doors of scraper receivers shall point away from the plant, the area adjacent to
the doors shall be clear of hazardous equipment
4.4
Buildings
The control room shall be located and designed to protect personnel and
critical equipment located therein from the effects of potential blast
overpressure. This building should not have any windows on walls facing
process areas of the plant, or such windows should be of small size and of
blast resistant design. Two exits shall be provided from the control room.
The control room, emergency power generation and fire pump driver and
firewater storage tank areas shall be located in a non hazardous area.
4.5
Leak Sources
For process related equipment carrying hydrocarbons, the number of bolted
connections (flanges) and valves influences potential leak frequency. Welded
connections shall be employed as far as practicable, and number of valves
shall be minimized compatible with the required operations and maintenance
strategies.
Sheet 7 of 20
4.6
Ignition Sources
Equipment and systems shall be specified for classified areas in accordance
with specified codes and standards. Spark ignition vehicle engines shall be
prohibited from the site.
4.7
4.8
Vent Stack
The vent stack shall be surrounded by a sterile area, for safe disposal and by
accidental burning of surplus flammable vapors produced from the gas plant.
The stack and sterile area shall be located such that maximum thermal radiation
levels at ground level at the edge of the flare area are within permissible limits
for plant personnel, in accordance with API 521.
Sheet 8 of 20
5.1
Visual Detection
Fire Detectors
Flammable Gas Detectors
Reliability
Simplicity
Independence system
Cost effective On-line testing -
The Fire and Gas system for the plant shall comprise of field detectors
monitoring areas of the plant for the presence of flammable concentrations of
gas as detailed in the specifications for ESD, Fire & Gas.
5.2
5.3
Sheet 9 of 20
fire protection to extinguish jet fires. Pool fires may be extinguished by the use
of firewater supplemented with Aqueous Film Forming Foam.
Fire protection, both active and passive, shall be considered in order to reduce,
as far as reasonably practicable, the risks presented by ignited material on the
facility. The objectives shall be to:
Extinguish fires.
Control the spread of a fire or fires.
Protect personnel from heat radiation.
Cool structures, pressurized inventories and buildings
Insulate structures, buildings and shutdown valves.
Reduce the risk to personnel, as far as reasonably practicable.
Active fire protection in process and utility areas shall be by any, or a
combination, of the following:
Fixed Water Spray System.
Oscillating and manual Fire Monitors.
Hydrants, hoses & nozzles.
Fixed Hose-reels.
Hand held or wheeled portable fire extinguishers.
Exact fire protection requirements to be determined by the Fire Risk Analysis.
Compressor/Generator enclosure fire protection shall be as recommended by
the manufacturer.
Control Room fire protection shall be by a proprietary inert gaseous
Extinguishing system. Normally unoccupied locations such as equipment
cabinets may be protected by CO2 total flood system. Hand held portable fire
extinguishers should supplement the protection of the area.
The camp compound area fire protection shall comprise hand extinguishers.
5.3.1 Fire Water
Site drainage shall be capable of evacuating the worst case firewater demand
plus a rainfall rate of " per hour for a combined total of 2 hours.
Fire Monitors
Manually initiated, self-actuating, oscillating Firewater Monitors shall be
installed on the fire ring-main to provide water jets for cooling purposes
in the event of a fire. Monitors shall be distributed along the main so that
a 100-ft. jet (in still air) can reach a fire anywhere in the Process Areas of
the Plant with sufficient choice to afford optimum protection for fire
fighters. Each branch feed pipe from the main to the monitor shall be
provided with a manual block valve to allow maintenance of the monitor.
Sheet 10 of 20
Monitor pipework shall be arranged so that the operator can walk through
360 without stepping over the feed pipe. Monitors shall be designed to
discharge 6417 cu. ft/hr at 121 psig.
Fire Hydrants
Twin Fire Hydrants, each carrying two 2" pressure reducing hydrant
valves with instantaneous couplings, shall be located on the firewater
ring-main at a maximum spacing of 130ft. Therefore, complete with a
maximum of two off 72ft hoses, all areas requiring manually applied
firewater can have firewater brought to bear on a fire. Pressure reducing
hydrant valves shall be set to discharge at a maximum of 100 psig.
Nominal design stage flow-rate for Hydrants shall be 3000 cu.ft/hr. per
valve. Each hydrant shall have an equipment cabinet adjacent containing
the following items:
4 No. 72ft, 2" fire hoses with instantaneous couplings.
2 No. Jet-spray nozzles suitable for water discharge.
Hydrant standpipes, sized to permit a maximum water velocity of 15
ft/sec, shall be isolated from the firewater ring-main with manually
operated block valves to permit maintenance while retaining fire main
continuity.
Firewater Supply
Firewater derived from the Water Supply system shall be stored in
covered Firewater Storage Tank adjacent to the Fire Pumps in an area
with low risk from the effects of an incident involving explosion and fire.
The capacity shall be based on 6 hours supply for worst case fire
demand. Contractor can propose a single tank for Raw Water and Process
Water.
Firewater Distribution
A Carbon Steel Firewater Distribution system shall supply all areas of Plant.
An 8"nominal bore ringmain shall serve the Plant Area.
The main shall be routed with the following considerations:
Sheet 11 of 20
Fire Pumps
Fire pumps shall be located in an area with low risk from the effect of an
incident involving explosion and fire. Where a residual risk of
impairment remains, the pumps shall be shielded from perceived risks by
use of screening or enclosure(s) suitable for the risk identified. Fire
pumps and drivers shall be protected from explosion and fire by means of
a wall designed and constructed to withstand the perceived risks.
There shall be two centrifugal type pumps (1 diesel & 1 electric driven)
each delivering 100% of design flow. The diesel pump(s) shall be located
to ensure that the air supply for combustion to the driver is drawn from
an area unlikely to ingest smoke from a fire.
Each pump system shall be supplied with the necessary instrumentation
and controls to allow fully automatic and/or manual operation. Pump
controls shall be arranged to ensure that pumps continue to run to failure,
fuel exhaustion or operation of the over-speed trip facility. A diesel day
tank for diesel engine driven pump shall enable continuous use for 24
hours. Pump suction inlets shall be provided with course mesh strainers
and located such that they are continuously primed, by the firewater
storage tanks, to assist pump N.S.P.H requirements.
The Ring-main shall be charged by electric jockey pump(s) of sufficient
flow rate and pressure to enable the use of any single hydrant outlet
without starting the duty Fire-pump.
Suitable screens shall be provided to protect the fire and jockey pumps
from sun/inclement weather.
Fixed Systems
A Foam Top Pouring System shall be provided to protect the Condensate
Storage Tank.
Each Top Pourer Foam Maker Set shall incorporate generator, vapor seal
and pourer in a single unit.
Sheet 12 of 20
Portable System
Portable wheeled foam trolleys, intended to be for first response only,
shall be provided around the Plant to cool infrastructure and give a foam
blanket over any spillage within bunded areas.
Each trolley unit shall be supplied complete with the following
equipment:
One foam inductor with dip pipe feeding from bottom of tank.
The unit shall be of a robust construction with handles and wheels
suitable for storage and use in an exposed location on the Plant.
Suitable locations for foam units shall be identified and developed to
identify quantities and types of foam required.
5.3.3 Gaseous Extinguishing System
Fine Water gaseous extinguishing systems shall be installed in Power
Generation enclosures, switch rooms and in enclosed areas where heavy
concentrations of power cables are expected.
When providing areas such as control rooms with a gaseous extinguishing
system consideration shall be given to protecting only the floor voids and
cabinets.
The following shall be noted:
Halon shall not be used.
Proprietary suppressant inert gas shall be used as the Extinguishing where
there is a risk to personnel due to normal occupancy.
Carbon Dioxide is an asphyxiant and shall only be used where there is
minimal risk of personnel occupancy at the time of release.
Design of the system shall comply with BS 5306: Part 4, particularly clause
34.
Sheet 13 of 20
5.4
A firewater ring main encircling the plant area with hydrants provided at
approximately 196ft. spacing.
Fixed foam monitors or foam spray systems to extinguish and/or cover
liquid hydrocarbon spill fires.
Portable and mobile fire protection equipment as indicated in following
sections.
Sheet 14 of 20
6.1
Portable Equipment
Water hoses with foam branch pipes, where appropriate, shall be provided for
firefighting.
Hose boxes containing portable fire fighting equipment such as fire water
hoses, water and foam branch pipes, foam compound pick-up tube assemblies
and foam compounds in containers, shall be installed adjacent to hydrant
points throughout the plant.
Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided, the Contractor shall nominate
size, quantity and specific location. As a minimum extinguishers shall be
provided as follows:
6.2
Foam
CO2
Control
Room,
Laboratory,
Pressurized Water
Stores, Workshops
Switchgear,
Workshop,
Mobile Equipment
The Contractor shall provide a suitable Fire Truck / Trailers for use on the site.
Such Fire Truck will be a small four-wheel drive vehicle.
Supplier shall equip vehicle with:
Sheet 15 of 20
7.1
7.2
Sheet 16 of 20
7.3
Noise Control
The following area noise limits generally shall be applied:
Area
Control Room, Laboratory
Workshop
All other work areas within the plant
The flare tip shall be designed to ensure that under maximum design flare rate
conditions, noise levels will not exceed 90 dB (A) at the boundary fence of the
flare sterile area.
During detail design, the Contractor shall submit a Noise Control Report for
Company/Consultant approval
Sheet 17 of 20
7.4
Plant Security
A security fence at least 7 ft. high shall be provided surrounding the Flare site
and shall be illuminated by plant security lighting. Plant shall be surrounded
by solid wall boundary. Fences and gates shall be constructed to a minimum
strength in accordance with recognized standards.
A security fence shall also be provided surrounding wellhead.
Sheet 18 of 20
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
8.1
8.2
Controlled and safe disposal of solid and liquid wastes starting from the
construction period, to minimize environmental pollution.
Discouragement of third party encroachment on Plant and Wellhead
areas.
Discouragement of the storage of empty containers, such as chemical
Emissions
Emissions at the plant of produced hydrocarbons shall be eliminated
where practicable.
Vented gas from production streams shall be disposed of safely to the
atmosphere by venting through a suitably designed venting system.
b)
Wastes
All liquid discharges from equipment in the plant shall be routed to the
appropriate drains systems (hazardous open and closed, and nonhazardous open). Liquids from closed drains systems shall be collected
in the flare KO drum, and from that pumped to the produced water
treatment system.
Liquids from hazardous open drains systems shall be treated in a
treatment unit to a concentration not exceeding 30 ppm free oil
before disposal into evaporation pond.
Produced water from the process streams shall also be treated in
produced water treatment unit and filter to a concentration not exceeding
50 ppm free oil before disposal into re-injection well
Sheet 19 of 20
Water Storage
Breathing Equipment
Firefighting Suits
Fire Trailer/Truck
Sheet 20 of 20
Volume-2A (Process)
Volume-2A (Process)