PROCESSING

New NGL-recovery process

provides viable alternative
Robert R. Huebel
Michael G. Malsam
Randall Gas Technologies
Houston
can achieve NGL recovery efficiencies
comparable to that of advanced turbo-
expander cycles but for lower capital
and operating expenditures.
This article reviews the fundamen-
tals of the IPOR process, including
process features, benefits, and appli-
cability. It also presents case studies
that compare process performance
with both straight refrigeration and
advanced turboexpander cycles and
economic analysis.
Diverse environments
Natural gas conditioning and process-
ing plants are somewhat unique in that
the raw material feedstock is typically
fed into the plant at the pressure, flow
rate, and composition at which it is
produced.
Consequently, natural gas process-
ing plants have considerable variation
in size, complexity, and configuration,
depending upon specific reservoir
production characteristics, geography,
customer specifications, and market
drivers. These range from simple dewpoint plants with ca-
pacities less than 5 MMscfd and minimal hydrocarbon re-
covery to large deep cut ethane extraction straddle plants
which process in excess of 1 bcfd .
With such a diverse operating environment, it is a bit sur-
Operational scenarios for two uses of a
new refrigeration process for recover-
ing NGLs from natural gas have shown
it to enhance operability and reduce
capital and operating expenditures
when compared with the two more
traditional process choicesstraight
refrigeration and turboexpander.
Straight refrigeration units that
most often use propane as refrigerant
have proven to be economical and re-
liable. Their operating temperature,
however, typically about 35 F., limits
NGL extraction. For higher NGL re-
covery, todays processor is left with a
cryogenic turboexpander.
IPOR (IsoPressure Open Refrigera-
tion) has been developed by Randall
Gas Technologies, a division of Lum-
mus Technology, a CB&I company,
to bridge this gap. The advanced re-
frigeration process can economically
achieve essentially total C
3
+ recovery
from most natural gas streams. Using
conventional closed-loop mechani-
cal refrigeration combined with an
open-loop mixed refrigeration cycle, the new technology
Based on a presentation to the GPA Europe Annual Conference,
Prague, Sept. 21-23, 2011.
CASE STUDY 1:
PLANT DESIGN BASIS
Table 1
Feed gas:
Flow, MMscfd 100
Pressure, psig 70
Temperature, oF. 80
Composition, mol %:
N
2
& CO
2
1.8
C
1
75.0
C
2
16.1
C
3
+ 7.3
Residue gas:
Pressure, psig 1,200
Heating value, btu/scf max 1,100
NGL product specifcations:
C
2
/C
3
liquid volume ratio 0.02
CASE STUDY 2:
PLANT DESIGN BASIS
Table 2
Feed gas:
Flow, MMscfd 20
Pressure, psig 200
Temperature, oF. 50
Composition, mol %:
N
2
& CO
2
1.9
C
1
81.2
C
2
9.3
C
3
+ 7.6
Residue gas:
Pressure, psig 950
Hydrocarbon dewpoint, oF. 5
NGL product specifcations:
C
2
/C
3
liquid volume ratio 0.02
PROCESSING
prising that natural gas processors have had essentially only
two process technology choices for extracting hydrocarbon
liquids from natural gas: either straight refrigeration or tur-
boexpander. Among more than 1,600 operating natural gas
processing plants shown in Oil & Gas Journals Worldwide
Gas Plant Survey, about 80% use either straight refrigeration
or turboexpander technology (OGJ, June 6, 2011, p. 88).
With the last new lean oil plant built some 30 years ago,
the estimated portion of new gas plants built today using
these two technologies is greater than 95%.
Straight refrigeration units, which most often use pro-
pane or ammonia, can be built for essentially any capacity
or feed-gas composition, are of mild steel construction, are
relatively simple to construct and operate, and have proven
to be economical and reliable. However, with their operating
temperature typically limited to about 35 F., their capabil-
ity for NGL extraction is limited.
For higher NGL recovery, todays processor has but a
single choice: cryogenic turboexpander. Since its inception
in the late 1960s, turboexpander technology has evolved
into the technology of choice for deep NGL-product recov-
ery. As designs were refined, turboexpander technology
essentially displaced lean-oil technology for high LPG or
ethane-extraction applications.
Several variations of the technology are available, depend-
ing upon the targeted product recovery and feed-gas condi-
tions, with proprietary designs offering even higher efficien-
cies. With operating temperatures as low as 200 F., NGL
product recoveries approaching 98%+ are technically feasible.
With straight refrigeration technology, the benefits for
the customer include low capital and operating expenditures
(CAPEX and OPEX), a broad range of applicability, early
production capabilities, but limited NGL recovery. Expander
technology offers superior NGL-recovery potential but high-
z
1
1
2
0
1
0
9
O
G
J
p
h
u
0
1
FIG. 1
IPOR PROCESS FOR HIGH LPG RECOVERY
Gas-gas
exchanger
NGL
Sales Feed
Mixed refrigerant
compressor
Propane refrigeration
compressor
De-ethanizer
refux drum
De-ethanizer
reboiler
De-ethanizer
overhead
separator
De-ethanizer
De-ethanizer
overhead
condenser
Mixed refrigerant
gas-gas exchanger
PROCESSING
Feed gas, at a pressure typically 300-550 psig, is initially
cooled and partially condensed in the gas-gas heat exchang-
er by cross exchange with cold residue gas and propane re-
frigerant. A conventional brazed aluminum heat exchanger
appears in the flow diagram; however, shell-and-tube ex-
changers can also be used for this service.
The cooled and partially condensed feed-gas stream is
then fed to the middle section of the de-ethanizer, which
uses either trays or packing or a combination of these to
effect the desired product separation. Below the feed tray,
the stripping section of the column selectively removes the
lighter fractions to meet product specifications, which nor-
mally is 2-5% ethane in the recovered propane. Heat for the
separation is provided by the de-ethanizer reboiler, which is
a conventional shell-and-tube heat exchanger, with the heat
supplied from the plant heating medium system.
In the upper section of the de-ethanizer, above the feed
tray, the cooled feed gas flows counter-currently to the reflux
stream, which is fed to the top tray in a conventional man-
ner. The reflux provides additional cooling for the feed-gas
stream and also selectively absorbs the propane and heavier
components from the gas, thereby providing high product
recovery efficiencies.
The overhead gas stream from the de-ethanizer, at this
point in the process containing primarily the light ends from
the feed-gas stream and a small portion of the propane, is
er CAPEX and OPEX and a longer time to initial operation
due to the long lead time of such specialty equipment as the
turboexpander and brazed aluminum heat exchangers.
Ethane-rich cycle
The advanced refrigeration NGL extraction process can eco-
nomically achieve deep NGL extraction from most natural
gas streams. Using conventional closed-loop mechanical re-
frigeration combined with an open-loop mixed refrigeration
cycle, this process can provide performance comparable to
that of advanced turboexpander technologies but with much
lower CAPEX and OPEX.
Unique about the IPOR process is its open-loop ethane-
rich mixed refrigeration cycle. This refrigerant, extracted
from the feed gas itself, is a mixture of predominantly ethane
with lower concentrations of methane, propane, and other
feed-gas constituents.
This refrigeration cycle serves a dual purpose: producing the
cryogenic refrigeration for the process to enable lower tempera-
ture operation while at the same time providing a reflux stream
to the fractionation column, the combination of which produc-
es high product extraction and thermal efficiencies.
The extraction process can be configured in several ways,
depending on the feed stream, site conditions, and project
objectives. Fig. 1 depicts one configuration of the IPOR tech-
nology recommended for high recovery LPG applications.
z
1
2
0
1
0
9
O
G
J
p
h
u
0
2
FIG. 2
TURBOEXPANDER PROCESS
129 F.
NGL
Fuel
Residue gas to
recompression
(160 psig)
Feed
(400 psig)
Residue
recycle
Reboilers
Cold
separator
Booster
compressor-
expander
De-ethanizer
reboiler
De-ethanizer
D
e
m
e
t
h
a
n
i
z
e
r

Propane
refrigerant
35 F.
58 F.
PROCESSING
requirements in the de-ethanizer overhead condenser and to
minimize the compression power requirements.
From the de-ethanizer overhead condenser, the mixed
refrigerant stream is heated further as it flows through the
mixed refrigerant gas-gas exchanger to the mixed refriger-
ant compressor. The discharge pressure of this compressor
is normally about 40 psig higher than the operating pressure
of the de-ethanizer.
The mixed refrigerant compressor is of conventional design
and can be either reciprocating, centrifugal, or screw type, de-
pending upon project requirements and customer preferenc-
es. Drivers may be gas turbine, gas engine, or electric motor.
The compressor can be packaged with driver, scrubbers, and
discharge cooler following standard industry practice.
The compressed ethane-rich, mixed refrigerant stream is
then cooled and partially condensed in the mixed refriger-
ant gas-gas exchanger. Cooling for this exchanger is provid-
further cooled in the de-ethanizer overhead condenser by
cross exchange with cold residue gas and the ethane-rich
mixed refrigerant stream.
The cooled and partially condensed gas stream flows to
the de-ethanizer overhead separator. The liquid from this
separation, a mixture of methane, ethane, and propane, is
used as the refrigerant for the open-loop mixed refrigerant
cycle. The de-ethanizer overhead separator therefore has a
twofold function: It acts as a conventional two-phase gas-
liquid separator, and it provides surge capacity for the liquid
mixed refrigerant system.
From the de-ethanizer overhead separator, the pressure
of the liquid mixed refrigerant is reduced, creating a Joule-
Thomson refrigeration effect: This cold stream provides the
desired cooling in the de-ethanizer overhead condenser. The
pressure of the low-pressure mixed refrigerant, usually in
the range of 100-200 psig, is selected to satisfy the cooling
z
1
1
2
0
1
0
9
O
G
J
p
h
u
0
3
FIG. 3
IPOR PROCESS
Gas-gas
exchanger
NGL
Sales Feed
Fuel
Mixed refrigerant
compressor
Propane refrigerant
compressor
De-ethanizer
refux drum
De-ethanizer
reboiler
De-ethanizer
overhead
separator
De-ethanizer
365 psig
410 psig
120 psig
42 F.
10 F.
75 F.
De-ethanizer
overhead
condenser
Mixed refrigerant
gas-gas exchanger
PROCESSING
IPOR process, the process refrigeration temperature is in the
range of 10 F. to 20 F.; other refrigerants, therefore, such
as ammonia may be used as well.
For the LPG-recovery configuration above, product extrac-
tion efficiencies are excellent, with C
3
recovery in the range of
95-99%+, with essentially 100% recovery of the C
4
+ fraction.
From a thermal efficiency perspective, the IPOR process
requires about 15-40% less compression power than a com-
parable turboexpander design. As a result, plants using the
IPOR technology will also have lower emissions and a small-
er carbon footprint.
ed by low-temperature mixed refrigerant and propane. The
two-phase stream flows to the de-ethanizer reflux drum, a
conventional two-phase gas liquid separator. This liquid is
used to provide reflux to the de-ethanizer column, thereby
completing the open cycle of the mixed refrigerant loop.
Noncondensable vapors, consisting mainly of methane,
are directed back into the process via the de-ethanizer over-
head separator and eventually exit the process into the resi-
due gas stream or may be used as fuel.
The closed-loop propane refrigeration is of conventional
natural gas industry design and construction. In a typical
z
1
2
0
1
0
9
O
G
J
p
h
u
0
4
FIG. 4
MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION
C
3
+ product
Reboiler
Cold
separator
Cooler
Recompressor
Gas-refrigerant
exchanger
Gas-gas
exchanger
Residue gas
Fee gas
(975 psig)
10 F.
225 psig
Gas chiller
Stabilizer
CASE STUDY 1: RESULTS Table 3
IPOR Turbo-
Feed-gas capacity: 100 MMscfd process expander
Product recovery:
C
3
99.5 98.8
C
4
+ 100.0 100.0

NGL production, b/d 5,173 5,131
Power, bhp:
Inlet compression 9,780 10,460
Residue compression 7,060 11,930
Refrigeration 4,730 1,910
Pumps, air coolers 490 560
Total power 22,020 24,860
Gas compression 16,000 16,000
Process compression 6,020 8,860
Major equipment countprocess:
Turboexpander 1
Pumps 4
Columns 1 2
All other 24 24
Total major equipment countprocess 25 31
CASE STUDY 1: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Table 4
IPOR Turbo-
Feed-gas capacity: 100 MMscfd process, $ expander
CAPEX <11.0 million Base
Savings
Turboexpander
Stainless steel pumps (2)
Carbon steel pumps (2)
Stainless steel column
Compression

OPEX <700,000/year Base
Fuel savings @ $4.50/MMbtu

NGL revenue >220,000/year Base
Shrinkage @ $4.50/MMbtu
Crude @ $80/bbl
C
3
@ 60% of crude
Trans. & frac. @ $0.05/gal
96% availability
PROCESSING
ited only by the performance of in-line control instruments,
i.e., control valves, meters, etc., unlike turboexpander designs,
which suffer from an inherent loss of efficiency at reduced flows.
The process can be designed for a wide variety of feed-gas
compositions, site conditions, and capacities. Ethane recov-
ery can be incorporated into an IPOR process design, with
ethane recoveries up to 80%, depending upon feed-gas com-
position. Equipment can be incorporated to allow for future
ethane recovery, or the initial design can permit operation in
ethane-rejection/ethane-recovery mode.
The process was developed based on proven technolo-
gies and equipment employed extensively in gas plants. All
the equipment incorporated into the process design is well
within the natural gas industrys experience and capability.
The low equipment count, small footprint, and process sim-
plicity of the technology permit a compact layout and a high
degree of modularization.
The process utilizes equipment and materials that are all
well proven within the natural gas processing industry. Most
of the unit can be of carbon steel or low-temperature carbon
steel construction; typically the only major equipment item
that requires stainless steel construction is the de-ethanizer
overhead separator.
The only rotating equipment required for the IPOR process
is the refrigerant compressor. The process requires no cryo-
genic turboexpander or light hydrocarbon pumps. As a result:
Reliability and operability will be comparable to that
of a conventional refrigeration process and should exceed
that of a modern day turboexpander facility, given the fewer
items of rotating equipment.
The process offers superior economics for almost any
feed-gas rate, from as low as 5 MMscfd to 1 bcfd+.
Almost infinite turndown capacity is possible with an
IPOR process, to feed-gas rates as low as 10% of design, lim-
z
1
1
2
0
1
0
9
O
G
J
p
h
u
0
5
FIG. 5
IPOR PROCESS FOR CASE STUDY 2
Gas-gas
exchanger
Residue gas
to recompressor
NGL
Feed
Mixed refrigerant
compressor
Propane refrigerant
compressor
De-ethanizer
refux drum
De-ethanizer
reboiler
De-ethanizer
overhead
separator
De-ethanizer
De-ethanizer
overhead
condenser
Mixed refrigerant
gas-gas exchanger
Gas chiller Gas chiller
410 psig
20 F.
125 psig
435 psig
105 F.
PROCESSING
anizer column is consumed as fuel to achieve the residue-gas
heating value specifications.
Fig. 3 illustrates the IPOR process used in the study. Feed
gas enters the process unit at a compressor interstage pres-
sure of about 365 psig. The propane refrigeration system op-
erates at 10 F., much warmer than that required by the tur-
boexpander process, and 16.7 psig. The minimum operating
temperature of the de-ethanizer column is 42 F. and is of
low-temperature carbon steel construction.
To achieve the residue-gas pipeline heating value specifi-
cation, a portion of the ethane-rich noncondensable vapors
from the de-ethanizer reflux drum is consumed as fuel, with
the remainder mixing with the residue gas via the de-etha-
nizer overhead separator.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the study.
Compared with the turboexpander design, the IPOR
Marcellus plant
A recent study compared the IPOR process with modern tur-
boexpander technology. Feedstock for the new plant is from
the Marcellus shale, a region with limited existing oil and
gas infrastructure and no existing ethane market. Demand
for LPG in the region is strong, with extracted LPG sold into
the local market.
As a result, the customer wanted to maximize LPG pro-
duction. Due to the richness of the gas, some ethane extrac-
tion was required to meet the residue-gas pipeline specifica-
tions, with the ethane consumed within the plant as fuel.
The fields gathering system operated at low pressure, with
residue gas delivered into an existing high pressure pipeline.
Table 1 summarizes the design basis for the plant.
Two process technologies were evaluated: conventional
turboexpander and the IPOR process.
The turboexpander process utilized in the study was a
modern design (Fig. 2). Due to the richness of the feed gas,
a propane refrigeration system with a low stage operating
temperature of 35 F. at 3.4 psig was integrated into the
process design to provide supplemental cooling. A portion
of the ethane vapor stream from the overhead of the de-eth-
PROCESS COMPARISONS Table 7
Refrigeration IPOR process Turboexpander
Applicability Feed-gas volume, MMscfd Any Any 50+
Feed-gas pressure, psig Any <600 Any
Feed-gas hydrocarbons Lean-Rich Moderate-Rich Lean-Rich
NGL recovery Ethane, % N/A 40-80 95
Propane, % 20-40 99.9 99.9
Butane, % 50-70 100 100
Gasoline, % 70-90 100 100
Constructability Materials of construction Carbon steel Limited alloy Extensive alloy
Modularization potential High High High
Long lead equipment delivery, months 4-6 4-6 8-12
Operability Turndown, % of design 10 10 50
Reliability High High High
Maintenance Low Low Medium
Economics CAPEX Low Medium High
OPEX Low Medium High
CASE STUDY 2: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Table 6
IPOR
Feed-gas capacity: 20 MMscfd process, $ Refrigeration
CAPEX >2.0 million Base
Mole-sieve dehy vs. glycol
Additional plate fns
Additional compression

OPEX (fuel) >150,000/year Base
Fuel value @ $4.50/MMbtu

NGL revenue >5.1 million/year Base
Shrinkage @ $4.50/MMbtu
Crude @ $80/bbl
C
3
@ 60% of crude
C
4
@ 80% of crude
C
5
@ 90% of crude
Trans. & frac. @ $0.05/gal
96% availability

Internal rate of return 155% Base
38% tax rate
Double-declining balance
depreciation rate
20-year plant life

Payback period <6 months Base
CASE STUDY 2: RESULTS Table 5
IPOR
Feed-gas capacity: 20 MMscfd process Refrigeration
Product recovery, %:
C
3
99.0 33.1
C
4
100.0 60.0
C
5
+ 100.0 83.4

NGL production, b/d 1,087 532

Power, bhp
Inlet compression 810 1,830
Residue compression 975
Refrigeration 915 270
Total 2,700 2,100

Facility major equipment count 44 45
PROCESSING
the feed-gas compression, with residue gas sent directly to
the sales gas pipeline.
Fig. 5 illustrates the IPOR process used in the study. Feed
gas enters the IPOR unit at a compressor interstage pressure
of about 410 psig. For this design, the gas-gas exchangers
and chillers were conventional shell-and-tube design. All
of the noncondensable vapors from the de-ethanizer reflux
drum flow to the de-ethanizer overhead separator and on to
the residue gas stream.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the studys results.
From these results, key observations include the following:
1. NGL production with the IPOR unit is more than dou-
ble that of the refrigeration plant.
2. Complexity of the two designs is comparable,
process:
1. Achieves higher NGL recovery.
2. Requires about 32% less process compression power.
3. Requires about 20% less major equipment.
4. Requires less rotating equipment.
As a result, economics of the IPOR process are clearly su-
perior to the turboexpander design, both from an OPEX and
a CAPEX perspective (Table 4). Estimated capital cost of the
IPOR process design was $11 million less than that of the
turboexpander plant, the savings being the result of:
1. Less installed compression.
2. No turboexpander.
3. No light hydrocarbon/cryogenic pumps.
4. No stainless steel demethanizer column.
5. Less alloy material.
From an operating cost perspec-
tive, the IPOR process was esti-
mated to consume about $700,000/
year less in utilities, the savings
resulting from lower compression
power requirements, and hence
fuel gas consumption.
Northwest Canada
A second study was recently com-
pleted comparing the IPOR process
to a straight refrigeration process.
Location for this plant is in north-
west Canada, an area of existing oil
and gas production but no NGL or
ethane pipeline infrastructure. Liq-
uids produced in the plant would be
trucked to market.
The primary objective of the cus-
tomer in this application was to de-
liver a marketable sales gas. Given
the current favorable economic cli-
mate for gas liquids, however, incre-
mental LPG recovery was of interest
if economical.
The basis of design of the plant
for the study is discussed below. Ta-
ble 2 summarizes the design basis.
The straight refrigeration pro-
cess used in the study was a tradi-
tional design (Fig. 4), with process
temperature selected to achieve the
pipeline dewpoint specification,
thereby minimizing both CAPEX
and OPEX. Propane was used as
the refrigerant, with glycol injection
used for hydrate inhibition and de-
hydration. Feed gas for the refrigera-
tion unit was taken downstream of
NELSON-FARRAR COST INDEXES
Refnery construction (1946 basis)
(Explained in OGJ, Dec. 30, 1985, p. 145, and at www.pennenergy.com/index/research-and_data/oil-and_gas/Statistic-
Defnitions.html; click Nelson-Farrar Cost Indices)
Sept. Aug. Sept.
1962 1980 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011
Pumps, compressors, etc.
222.5 777.3 1,949.8 2,011.4 2,030.7 2,036.4 2,119.6 2,120.5
Electrical machinery
189.5 394.7 515.6 515.5 513.9 513.7 515.0 514.1
Internal-comb. engines
183.4 512.6 990.9 1,023.0 1,027.8 1,021.2 1,036.3 1,036.3
Instruments
214.8 587.3 1,342.1 1,394.8 1,435.1 1,437.3 1,458.2 1,461.6
Heat exchangers
183.6 618.7 1,354.6 1,253.8 1,116.0 1,103.5 1,103.5 1,253.8
Misc. equip. average
198.8 578.1 1,230.6 1,239.7 1,224.7 1,222.4 1,246.5 1,277.3
Materials component
205.9 629.2 1,572.0 1,324.8 1,480.1 1,489.4 1,619.7 1,627.6
Labor component
258.8 951.9 2,704.3 2,813.0 2,909.3 2,923.3 2,992.9 3,000.2
Refnery (Infation) Index
237.6 822.8 2,251.4 2,217.7 2,337.6 2,349.8 2,443.6 2,451.2
Refnery operating (1956 basis)
(Explained in OGJ, Dec. 30, 1985, p. 145, and at www.pennenergy.com/index/research-and_data/oil-and_gas/Statistic-
Defnitions.html; click Nelson-Farrar Cost Indices)
Sept. Aug. Sept.
1962 1980 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011
Fuel cost
100.9 810.5 1,951.3 978.5 1,184.9 1,048.8 1,267.6 1,196.5
Labor cost
93.9 200.5 237.9 264.5 281.7 277.9 255.1 262.4
Wages
123.9 439.9 1,092.2 1,177.1 1,279.4 1,289.0 1,270.6 1,267.5
Productivity
131.8 226.3 460.8 445.2 454.5 463.9 498.2 483.0
Invest., maint., etc.
121.7 324.8 830.8 812.4 850 854.5 888.6 891.3
Chemical costs
96.7 229.2 472.5 406.2 449.8 444.0 557.9 560.1
Operating indexes
Refnery
103.7 312.7 674.1 582.6 628.2 615.9 652.2 650.0
Process units*
103.6 457.5 1,045.1 706.1 796.8 749.5 831.2 809.5
*Add separate index(es) for chemicals, if any are used. See current Quarterly Costimating in frst issues for January,
April, July, and October. These indexes are published in the frst of each month. They are compiled by Gary Farrar, OGJ
Contributing Editor. Indexes of selected individual items of equipment and materials are also published on the Costimating
page in frst issues for January, April, July, and October.
PROCESSING
based upon major equipment count, which should re-
sult in similar operability and reliability. (Major equip-
ment count in this case includes the entire plant fa-
cility, including dehydration, utilities, and off sites.)
As a result, economics of the IPOR process are once again
superior to the refrigeration unit, taking into account incre-
mental differences in both OPEX and CAPEX (Table 6). Esti-
mated capital cost of the IPOR process design was $2 million
more than that of the refrigeration plant, the additional cost
being the result of:
1. More installed compression.
2. Additional heat-exchanger costs.
3. Additional cost of the molecular-sieve dehydration
system vs. the glycol injection system utilized in the refrig-
eration plant design.
4. More alloy materials.
The operating cost of the IPOR process was estimated to
be about $150,000/year more than the refrigeration process.
The additional cost was primarily the result of the higher
compression power requirements of the IPOR process, and
therefore more fuel-gas consumption.
NGL production with the IPOR unit is more than double
that of the refrigeration plant. The value of this addition-
al NGL revenue was estimated at $5.1 million/year. Based
upon the economic assumptions itemized in Table 6, the cal-
culated internal rate of return of the IPOR plant investment
is 155%, with a payback of fewer than 6 months.
While the IPOR unit requires somewhat more CAPEX
and OPEX than a minimal type investment of the refrig-
eration unit, these costs are more than compensated for with
the increased NGL revenue.
Table 7 summarizes the comparisons discussed in this
article.

The authors
Robert R. Huebel (rhuebel@cbi.com) is
vice-president of technology of Randall Gas
Technologies, a division of Lummus Technol-
ogy Inc., a CB&I company. His previous role
was as president of the ABB Randall Corp.
He joined the company in 1976. Huebel
has more than 40 years experience in the
domestic and international engineering, pro-
curement, and construction and natural gas
processing industries, including process engineering, project
management, contract development, and executive manage-
ment. He holds a BSc in chemical engineering and an MBA
from the University of Houston. Huebel is a registered profes-
sional engineer in seven states, is a member of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers and Project Management
Institute, and currently serves on the board of directors of the
Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
Michael G. Malsam (mmalsam@cbi.com) is
senior principal process engineering specialist
for Randall Gas Technologies, which he joined
in 1998. He has more than 30 years experi-
ence in the domestic and international EPC
and natural gas processing, including process
engineering, project development, and project
management. Malsam holds a BSc in chemi-
cal and petroleum refining engineering from the
Colorado School of Mines. He is a member of the American Insti-
tute of Chemical Engineers and the American Chemical Society.
References
1. Malsam, Michael G, IPOR TechnologyA new means
of LPG recovery, Gas Processors Association Annual Con-
vention, High Definition at 90Advancing the Midstream
Vision, March 2011.
2. Gas Processing with Cryogenic Turboexpander Technol-
ogy, Randall Gas Technologies, Houston; January 2011 Edition.
Reprinted with revisions to format, from the January 9, 2012 edition of Oil & Gas Journal
Copyright 2012 by PennWell Corporation