COMPARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL

GAS
Henri Paradowski
Andre Le-Gall & Benoit Laflotte
Gas Processing Department
Technip,
92973 Paris La Dfense, CEDEX
France

ABSTRACT
As a result of the growth of the natural gas market, worldwide NGL production capacity has increased strongly and
continuously in the last decades and this tendency is expected to continue for some years. NGL recovery activity seems
to be driven by its own market forces with a growth rate surpassing that of natural gas.
EPC contractors such as Technip have an important role to play in finding cost effective solutions for the NGL business.
Technip has a policy of studying solutions to identify those that best meet the requirements of reliability, efficiency and
capital cost. Big improvements have been achieved by moving away from so-called standard practice and through
process development studies.
There are many options for the different steps of NGL production; in this paper we will compare alternative routes for
selected steps:
Drying of natural gas,
Recovery of NGL from natural gas,
Fractionation of NGL into commercial products,
Refrigerated Propane Storage.
Studies are presented which illustrate the methods used to identify and present reliable and innovative solutions. These
examples are based on natural gas similar to the Qatar North Field for dehydration and NGL recovery and on an NGL
mixture similar to that fractionated in Venezuela for fractionation and refrigerated propane storage.
The studies use open art and Technip proprietary technologies.
The underlying experience comes from many LSTK projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.

Gastech 2005

COMPARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS
INTRODUCTION
As a major EPC Contractor, Technip has been involved in the conception, design, construction and initial operation of
many large size gas treatment and NGL recovery plants over the last forty years.
In several instances follow-up contracts were executed for the same Client, either as debottlenecking projects1 or
new capacity additions, therefore providing first-hand access to operating experience. The lessons learnt from past
projects give the Contractor a powerful tool for the development of improved solutions that are of benefit to its Clients.
This paper focuses on specific aspects of NGL recovery units where the Contractor can bring a significant input.
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE NGL MARKET
The present paper is focused on NGL recovery from natural gas. In the analysis of the market drivers, a distinction
should be made between ethane and LPG (propane, butanes and mixed LPG).
Ethane value is exclusively related to its potential use as cracker feedstock, and therefore its extraction is only
considered in the general framework of a downstream petrochemical development. In other cases, ethane has only fuel
value.
The world LPG market has seen a significant market growth in the last decades, with an average growth of 2.9% per
year over the past ten years and a current worldwide production of over 210 million tonnes. This average growth is
slightly higher than the corresponding growth in natural gas production, and nearly twice the average crude oil
production growth.
The main drivers for LPG growth worldwide are the residential/commercial sector and uses as petrochemical
feedstock, with significant regional disparities.
About 60% of world LPG production originates from natural gas, and this is the dominant source in North America,
Northern Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
To illustrate the market driven nature of NGL production, Figure 12 compares the average North American spot prices
for natural gas (Henry Hub), propane and n-butane (Mount Belvieu). All product prices are referred to their calorific
value.

Increasing NGL Plant capacity, H. Paradowski, L. Barthe and D. Gadelle, GPA European Chapter, Heidelberg Sept. 2003

Adapted from EIA / Barnes and Click

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 2

Henry Hub / Mount Belvieu monthly spot averages

Natural Gas, Propane, n-Butane

10
9

Natural gas
8

Butane

Propane

7
6
5
4

Natural gas

3
2

dc-04

juin-04

sept-04

nov-03

mars-04

mai-03

aot-03

janv-03

juil-02

oct-02

avr-02

dc-01

juin-01

sept-01

nov-00

fvr-01

mai-00

aot-00

janv-00

juil-99

oct-99

dc-98

mars-99

juin-98

sept-98

nov-97

fvr-98

avr-97

aot-97

janv-97

juil-96

oct-96

dc-95

mars-96

Sources: EIA / Barnes and Click

Figure 1: Natural Gas, Propane and Butane prices (in US$/MMBTU)

Although this approach could be accused of oversimplification, the comparison suggests that there is a market
incentive to extract the LPG, except for limited periods of time (winter 2000, winter 2003). More detailed studies indicate
that the extraction of LPG in North America3 and in Northern Europe4 show positive margins. This situation translates into
significant margins in areas of cheap natural gas from which LPG can be sold at market price.
To sustain this current and projected market growth, several larger size gas treatment / NGL production projects
have been scheduled or implemented such as the NGL-4 and Dolphin Projects in Qatar, Berri debottlenecking in Saudi
Arabia, OGD-3/AGD-2/Ruwais-3 projects in UAE, the Western Libya Gas Project and the Ohanet project in Algeria among
others.
Additional NGL will be produced in a number of LNG plants that are under implementation or at various project
stages.

Uncertainty about gas quality could delay US LNG imports, D.J. Hawkins , OGJ Sept. 20, 2004

North Sea Gas Processing Margins, Purvin & Getz, GPA European Chapter, London Nov. 2004

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 3

GAS AND NGL CHAINS : FROM WELLHEAD TO THE CONSUMER

From wellhead to consumer, each of the products to be valorised has to be extracted, purified and transported.
The typical line-up of a sales gas and NGL production chain includes:

Collection and transport from wellhead to processing plant,

Condensate separation and stabilisation for storage and export,

Gas sweetening (H2S, CO2, other sulphur compounds if appropriate) with associated sulphur recovery, if required,

Gas dehydration,

LPG extraction, ethane extraction when desirable,

LPG (and/or ethane) purification to the required specification, storage and export,

Sales gas export to distribution network.

Depending on the nature of the raw natural gas, and in particular, on the amount of contaminants present from the
reservoir, an optimised line-up has to be developed.
A simple gas plant, based on lean natural gas and producing LPG might be limited to a few processing steps (glycol
dehydration, LPG recovery). More complex feedstock will require additional processing steps and leave room for more
complex engineering developments. Typically, optimisation issues are focused around:

Selection of the acid gas removal process (type of solvent, H2S vs. CO2 selectivity, requirement to remove
other sulphur compounds...),

Selection of the dehydration technology,

Optimisation of the NGL recovery unit to best match the required level of product recovery, flexibility (ethane
recovery vs. ethane rejection) and operability constraints,

Selection of NGL product purification schemes, including handling of by-products such as disulphide oil in the
case of caustic washing of LPG in the liquid phase to remove mercaptans, or regeneration gas handling
should gas phase removal of mercaptans be selected.

Such situations are commonly encountered in the Middle East and in the Caspian area, where raw gases are
generally wet and sour. Similar situations exist, to a lesser extent in, Africa and South East Asia. All of them pose
significant challenges to the process designer making each gas treatment and NGL recovery plant unique.
A second factor that makes each gas plant unique is the relative location of the gas field vis--vis the export facilities
and the targeted market of each of the products. There are few similarities between the issues to be resolved for a
straddle plant, located close to a petrochemical complex and a gas treatment plant in a remote producing area, as
encountered for instance in Saudi Arabia and in Abu Dhabi.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 4

A GAS PROJECT EXAMPLE : WLGP

The gas field geographical location offers additional challenges to the project developers and the engineering
companies. The Western Libya Gas Project offers a significant example of these complex issues5.

Figure 2: Western Libya Gas Project schematic

The Western Libya Gas Project valorises gas and oil from the Wafa Desert field (located 500 km inland) and gas from
the Bahr Essalam field located 100 km offshore. The final products are sales gas, stabilized crude oil, stabilized
condensate, butanes and propane. The majority of the gas is exported to Italy by pipeline.
Three gas-processing plants have been built to achieve the project objectives:

1.

The Wafa Desert Plant pretreats the oil and gas feedstock to allow pipeline transportation to shore where the
final extraction and treatment is performed. The options selected for the Wafa Desert Plant are oil and gas
condensate stabilisation, CO2 removal, gas dehydration and LPG extraction using a cryogenic process. All
liquids are commingled and transported to shore through a 16 pipeline. The sweet gas that has been
conditioned for transport (water and hydrocarbon dew-point) is compressed and sent to the coast through a
32 pipeline.

2.

The Mellitah Plant receives gas and condensate separately from the offshore field. Gas is treated to remove
H2S and CO2 and is then dehydrated. Part of the LPG is removed and treated. Condensates from the
condensate pipeline and the gas pipeline slug catchers are stabilized.

3.

Gas from Wafa Desert is mixed at the Wafa Coastal Plant with the gas from the Mellitah Plant and is
compressed for export. The liquids from Wafa Desert are fractionated at the Wafa Coastal Plant to yield
stabilised crude oil, butane and propane that are shipped separately.

ENI web site, Investor Relations, October 2004

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 5

PROCESSING OPTIONS FOR SELECTED STEPS IN NGL RECOVERY

In the remainder of this paper, we will illustrate examples of process options that may be considered when
developing a gas processing plant line-up. We will compare alternative routes, supported with calculations, for the
following steps:

Drying of natural gas,

Recovery of NGL from natural gas,

The studies that are presented for these two steps are based on natural gas from the Qatar North Field.

Fractionation of NGL into commercial products,

Refrigeration of Propane Storage.

These two examples are based on an NGL mixture from Eastern Venezuela.
The studies use open art and Technip proprietary technologies. The underlying experience comes from many LSTK
projects in which Technip has been the EPC contractor.
The following tables provide in one block the basis of the different studies.
Basis for studies on Dehydration and NGL recovery
Nitrogen

4.0% mole

Methane

86.8% mole

Ethane

5.5% mole

Propane

2.1% mole

i-Butane

0.3% mole

n-Butane

0.5% mole

i-Pentane

0.2% mole

n-Pentane

0.2% mole

n-Hexane

0.2% mole

C7+

0.2% mole

Table 1.1. Natural gas composition.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 6

NG temperature at dehydration inlet

34C

NG Pressure at dehydration inlet

62 bar abs

NG Pressure at NGL recovery inlet

60 bar abs

Sales Gas Pressure

60 bar abs

Fuel Gas Pressure

25 bar abs
40,000 kgmole/h

Design Natural gas flow rate

(800 MMSCFD)

Process fluid outlet temperature: air cooled

exchangers

34C

Centrifugal compressor efficiencies

82 %

Air temperature

28C
GE 5 C
GE 5 D

Available power for different gas turbines

24,200 kW
27,900 kW

Table 1.2. Other fixed conditions.

Basis for Studies on NGL Fractionation

CO2

8.0% mole

Methane

0.1% mole

Ethane

28.9% mole

Propane

33.9% mole

i-Butane

7.6% mole

n-Butane

11.3% mole

i-Pentane

3.7% mole

n-Pentane

2.9% mole

n-Hexane

2.0% mole

C7+

1.6% mole

Table 2.1. NGL Fractionation feed.

NGL Feed temperature

33C

NGL Feed pressure

24 bar abs

NGL Feed flow

245 t/h

Hot Water Furnace efficiency

90 %

Hot Oil Furnace efficiency

65 %

Steam Boilers efficiency

90 %

Steam Turbine adiabatic efficiency

80 %

Electric power generator efficiency

97 %

HP Steam pressure

63 bar abs

HP Steam temperature

440C

LP Steam pressure

5 bar abs
Table 2.2. Other fixed conditions.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 7

Basis for studies on Refrigerated Propane Storage

Ethane

1.0% mole

Propane

98.0% mole

i-Butane

0.7% mole

n-Butane

0.3% mole

Table 3.1. Propane rundown composition.

Propane run down flow rate

160 t/h

Propane storage pressure

1.04 bar abs

Propane storage capacity

75,000 m3

Propane kettles approach (Wieland tubes)

2C

Table 3.2. Other fixed conditions.

DEHYDRATION OF NATURAL GAS
Problem definition
When natural gas is processed in an NGL recovery unit the water content has to be decreased whether to avoid the
formation of hydrates or to decrease the amount of hydrates formed and the size of the hydrates particles so that the
hydrates will not accumulate and plug the equipment. It is known that hydrates formed at very low temperatures in small
quantities will not stick to the walls of heat exchangers, valves and other equipment and that they do not plug
equipment. It is also known that hydrates can accumulate in dead end zones, where the velocity is reduced. Some
devices such as strainers or mesh pads can stop the hydrates crystals and allow a plug to build up.
Water content ppm
mole

Natural gas
at 62 bars

Natural gas
at 30 bars

20

-20

-26

10

-27

-32

-33

-39

-42

-47

-49

-53

0.5

-55

-59

0.2

-64

-66

0.1

-70

-72

Table 4. Hydrate formation temp. vs water content for natural gas at 62 and 30 bars.
Given that 0.1 ppm is a typical molecular sieve outlet gas specification for water content it can be observed from
Table 4 that in deep NGL recovery processes where the temperature reaches 100C it is not possible to avoid the
formation of hydrates. However, the quantity that is formed when the water content is 0.1 ppm is extremely small
i.e. 0.07 kg/h, or 600 kg/year.
Molecular sieves: a standard option for deep NGL recovery
Based on the above consideration and our experience, the use of mol sieves that can achieve a water content of 0.1
ppm in the dry gas seems a reasonable choice. It is also reasonable to operate the dryers on a fixed cycle basis to avoid
any breakthrough of water in the dry gas.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 8

The mol sieve drying unit is capital intensive mainly because of the cost of the vessels, remote operated valves,
instruments, etc and not so much because of the cost of the zeolite. Any cost optimisation shall be done by the
contractor with support from a reliable mol sieve vendor.
Mol sieve dehydration units may be troublesome in operation; many problems that have been reported relate to the
process design. A short list includes:

Carry over of liquids, water, hydrocarbons, causing caking of the adsorbent on the upper part of the bed and
near the walls of the vessel;

Presence of volatile basic compounds in the gas to be dried, these compounds can be production chemicals
or can come from the acid gas removal unit located upstream;

Presence of cations in the gas; the zeolites can be destroyed by an ion exchange process.

Refluxing phenomena occurring during regeneration of the adsorbent: the water formed on the walls will
flow on the walls of the vessel and will damage the mole sieves by creating a cake;

The MS binder can be damaged during regeneration; the resulting phenomena would be the creation of
dust, increased pressure drop and crushing of the pellets;

This list is not exhaustive, but gives a feel of the many potential problems in operation. To minimize them the design
has be done with care. We, as a contractor, would concentrate our efforts on the following:

Design of the unit and its auxiliary systems by the contractor. It should not be considered as a black box:
avoid packaged units, or strictly control the sub-contractor.

Use efficient upstream separation of liquids, but avoid creating mists which are very often the result of high
shear stress;

Use simple regeneration sequences with a ramping up of regeneration gas temperature; this will help to
avoid or reduce the refluxing phenomena; this shall be specified to the vendor;

Select the mol sieves and not the mol sieve vendor carefully: type, size of pellets, binder; it is important to
have a precise specification.

Install a robust filtration system downstream of the dryers.

TEG dehydration
Process design
Natural gas dehydration with TEG is a very simple process. Lean TEG is contacted with gas in a column using
structured packing. The TEG water content is in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 % wt of water. This means that the
regeneration of the rich TEG has to be performed using dry gas stripping at least.
This process has lower CAPEX and OPEX when compared to molecular sieves.
There are also fewer maintenance and operational issues, so that a TEG unit can easily be installed on an
offshore platform.
There are some design issues and the contractor shall be familiar with TEG technology to avoid mistakes with
potentially disastrous consequences, especially offshore where it is very difficult to add or modify equipment.
The most important design features from a process standpoint are:

Control of gas temperature at the inlet of the absorber,

Design of the absorber internals: distributors, structured packing, demisters, etc

Design of outlet separators to minimize losses of TEG by carry over; one has to remember that the melting
point of pure TEG is 5C so that it is very easy to freeze TEG in a cold separation unit.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 9

Parametric study
Using the data in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, the influence of the following parameters has been studied with a view to
defining optimisation guidelines for large NGL recovery trains. The influence of the following parameters on the water
content of dry gas has been covered by discrete studies:
Lean TEG water content,
Natural gas temperature,
Number of stages in the TEG absorber,

Natural gas
Temperature
C

Number of stages

TEG water
content
% weight

Dry gas water

content
ppm mole

34

0.1

11.2

34

0.1

6.3

24

0.1

4.0

24

0.1

2.9

24

0.2

6.5

24

0.2

5.5

Table 5. Effect of TEG Process Design Parameters on Dry Gas Water Content
The TEG absorption drying process is sensitive to three parameters

Lean TEG water content, which is related to the efficiency of gas stripping;

The temperature of the gas at the inlet of the absorber: precooling is very efficient way to obtain low water
content in the dry gas.

The number of stages and hence the efficiency of the packing selected: this efficiency depends on packing
type, bed height and the quality of liquid and gas distributors;

These parameters are the result of choices made by the contractor with the support of reliable vendors of the
column internals.
NGL RECOVERY FROM NATURAL GAS
Problem definition
The study of the market for NGL has shown that there is no doubt about the profitability of propane, butane, and
C5+ recovery from natural gas. The quantities available have to be such that the cost of infrastructure is not too
important.
For ethane recovery the situation is complicated because of the absence of a worldwide market for ethane. Many
operators have come to the conclusion that ethane recovery does not pay or at best it is seen as a future possibility. In
countries where the government has future objectives for an ethane based petrochemical industry, many ERUs have
been built for ethane recovery and rejection, but most of them have been operated in ethane rejection.
The process licensors of NGL recovery processes may advertise that the cost of the unit is not much affected by this
choice, the reality of a project including infrastructure is different: ethane recovery has a very significant impact on
CAPEX and OPEX.
When the recovery of ethane is seen as a future possibility, it is possible to build a propane recovery unit with
provisions made for future conversion to ethane recovery.
The way this can be implemented is not so much a function of the process selected: all the processes use similar if
not identical features and differ by details. It is the Contractors duty to allocate space in the lay out, accessibility, utility
connections, etc
Gastech 2005

Paradowski 10

Constant Ethane Production with variable Feed Gas

Each case is specific so that it is quite impossible to give the solution. A problem that is met in Europe is that gas
usage and production are variable. In winter the demand for gas is high, while in summer it is low. Underground gas
storage is not able to avoid seasonal variations completely.
This situation had to be considered for the ethane recovery unit designed in 1985 and built in 1987 in Lacq, France.
As the ethane was feeding an ethylene plant, its production was required to be as constant as possible, whereas gas
production was expected to fluctuate between winter and summer despite the use of the Lusagnet underground gas
storage facility.

Case study

We studied a similar but hypothetical case where the gas design capacity of the ERU is 800 MMSCFD (see Tables 1.1
and 1.2) i.e. 40,000 kgmoles/h. The targeted ethane production is 400 kt/yr or slightly less than 50 t/h.
With an ethane content in the feed gas of 5.5% mole, the required ethane recovery rate is 72.4% and the
production of pure C2 is 47.9 t/h in 50t/h of C2+ NGL. With this moderate extraction rate the Single Reflux Ethane
recovery process shown in Figure 3 is the more efficient choice. The Demethanizer column C1 is operated at 25 bars abs.
The sales gas compressor requires 23,600 kW of brake horsepower and could be driven by a GE5C or GE5D gas
turbine or a VFD electric motor.
Now we consider what happens when seasonal variations in gas demand cause variations in feedstock of 600, 700
and 800 MMSCFD for summer, spring and winter respectively. The ethane recovery rate must now be variable and high
in summer. To meet these objectives the Dual Reflux Ethane recovery process is chosen.
The power available from the sales gas compressor drivers is used to maintain ethane production constant during
periods of reduced natural gas throughput.
The following figures show the main characteristics of the resultant ERU at 800, 700, and 600 MMSCFD.
Ethane recovery 72.4% : 47,900 kg/h
Power 180 kW.h / t NGL

738 MMSCFD
23,600 kW

7,600 kW

K1

T1

GT

K2

E2

738 MMSCFD

Sales gas
60 bar
34C
25 bars
-94C

C1
E1

Feed gas

V1
-34C

60 bar

129,700 kg/h

800 MMSCFD

NGL (C2+)

Figure 3: Single Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (winter)

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 11

Ethane recovery : 84.8% 49,100 kg/h

Power 195 kW.h / t NGL

recycle

641 MMSCFD

Sales gas
60 bar

GT

K2

K1

T1

725 MMSCFD
23,600 kW

84 MMSCFD

7,100 kW

25 bars
-99C

E2

C1
E1

V1

Feed gas

-34C

60 bar

121,200 kg/h

700 MMSCFD

NGL (C2+)

Figure 4: Dual Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (spring)

Ethane recovery : 96 % 47650 kg/h

Power 215 kW.h / t NGL
6,800 kW

168 MMSCFD

recycle

K1

T1

714 MMSCFD
23,600 kW

GT

K2

546 MMSCFD

Sales gas
60 bar

25 bars
-102C

E2

C1
E1

V1

Feed gas

-34C

60 bar

109,500 kg/h

600 MMSCFD

NGL (C2+)

Figure 5: Dual Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme (summer)

Operating case

Winter

Spring

Summer

Feed gas flow rate

MMSCFD

800

700

600

Recycle gas flow rate

MMSCFD

84

168

Flow rate in sales gas compressor

MMSCFD

738

725

714

Power of sales gas compressor

kW

23,600

23,600

23,600

Ethane recovery rate

72.4

84.8

96

Pure ethane recovered

kg/h

47,900

49,100

47,650

NGL produced

kg/h

129,700

121,200

109,500

Specific power consumption

kW.h /t NGL
215
195
215
Table 6. Seasonal Operating Modes to maintain Constant Ethane Production

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 12

This line up was used in the design of the Lacq plant. In the Lacq plant, two compressors operating in parallel,
perform the compression of sales gas: a VFD motor driven compressor and a fixed speed asynchronous electric motor
driven compressor. The gas that is recycled cannot be contaminated by seal oil as the compressors use dry seals. The
contractor, Technip, fit the process to the specific Client (ELF in 1987, TOTAL nowadays after the merger of TOTAL FINA
ELF) constraints to maintain a constant ethane production.

Process optimisation

As understanding of the thermodynamics of NGL recovery have improved, new processes have been developed.
Technip was granted a patent in 2003 for a Multiple Reflux Ethane recovery process. This process, through the addition
of a vessel V2 makes it possible to increase the ethane recovery rate at constant power consumption.
Ethane recovery 88.6 % 51300 kg/h
Power 191 kW.h / t NGL

84 MMSCFD

7,100 kW

recycle

GT

K2

K1

T1

724 MMSCFD
23,600 kW

640 MMSCFD

Sales gas
60 bar

25 bars
-100C

E2

C1
E1

V1

Feed gas

-34C

V2

60 bar

123,400 kg/h

700 MMSCFD

NGL (C2+)

Figure 6: Multiple Reflux Ethane recovery process scheme

The MRE process is compared to the DRE process of the late 1980s in Table 7.
Operating case

DRE

MRE

Feed gas flow rate

MMSCFD

700

700

Recycle gas flow rate

MMSCFD

84

84

Flow rate in sales gas compressor

MMSCFD

725

724

Power of sales gas compressor

kW

23,600

23,600

Ethane recovery rate

84.8

88.6

Pure ethane recovered

kg/h

49,100

51,300

NGL produced

kg/h

121,200

123,400

kW.h /t NGL

195

191

Specific power consumption

Table 7. MRE vs. DRE Process Performance

Variable Ethane Production with constant Feed Gas
Ethane based ethylene plants when built in gas producing regions are frequently fed from multiple suppliers with no
buffer storage. This creates a requirement for variable ethane production, to be adapted to make full use of ethylene
plant capacity.
The following study therefore considers how to vary ethane recovery while keeping the propane recovery rate at
99% or at least at more than 95%. To simplify the discussion we shall consider that the feed gas flow rate is constant.
Four main options were identified for study that differ in terms of CAPEX, OPEX and operability:

Option 1: Recover C2+ at a constant rate from the feed gas; fractionate C2+ into C2 and C3+, re-inject
excess C2 into the sales gas upstream of compression,

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 13

Option 2: Adjust C2 recovery in a process designed for high C2 recovery by reducing the reflux and
increasing the temperature of the cold separator,

Option 3: Switch from a high C2+ recovery scheme to a C3+ recovery scheme in a bi-modal unit,

Option 4: Change operating conditions in a scheme built for the purpose of variable ethane recovery and
high propane recovery.

Option 1: Reinject C2 into sales gas upstream of the compression

This scheme is very robust and easy to operate. It requires distillation of the C2+ cut which increases CAPEX
compared to an ERU designed only for high ethane recovery. OPEX is also high with the paradox that energy
consumption is higher in ethane rejection than in ethane recovery. Today this option would be considered only if
distillation of C2+ into C2 and C3+ is integrated in the gas plant and if the amount of excess ethane is low compared to
ethane production.

Option 2: Adjust C2 recovery

This scheme is very simple and easy to operate. It requires only an additional reboiler on the demethanizer. The
CAPEX is only slightly higher than an ERU designed only for high ethane recovery. The OPEX is also high: the paradox is
that the energy consumption is higher in ethane rejection than in ethane recovery. There is a decrease of propane
production. Today this option is considered only if the variation of ethane production is limited.

Option 3: Switch from C2 recovery scheme to C3 recovery scheme

This option is very simple in principle but requires skilled operators and good production scheduling. Compared to a
C2 recovery scheme, it requires additional equipment and valves. CAPEX is higher than an ERU designed only for high
ethane recovery. This option has better OPEX than options 1 and 2 and better CAPEX than option 1. There is no decrease
of propane production. Today this option is considered on many projects.

Option 4: Slowly adjust parameters to gradually switch from C2 recovery scheme to C3 recovery
scheme

This option is also very simple in principle and robust. Skilled operators and good production scheduling are less
critical. Compared to a C2 recovery scheme, it requires additional equipment and valves. The CAPEX is higher than option
3 but it has better OPEX . There is no decrease of propane production. Today this option could be used on projects
requiring high flexibility.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 14

NGL FRACTIONATION : AN ENERGY SINK

Observation
The NGL extracted from the natural gas has to be fractionated to produce the following commercial products:

Ethane, feedstock for ethylene production,

Propane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market,

Iso-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market, mainly in the USA

N-butane, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market as butane.

Stabilised C5+ cut, stored at atmospheric pressure and sold on the international market.

NGL fractionation uses simple principles but consumes large amounts of energy for the reboiling of the fractionation
columns, about 300 kW.h / t of NGL or around 3% on an auto consumption basis.
Taking for example the fractionation unit built in Eastern Venezuela by the Technip group in the 90s and with reference
to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 the details are the following:
Duty of the reboiler
kW

Product flow rate

t/h

Product

Deethanizer

21700

65

Ethane

Depropanizer

17800

80

Propane

Debutanizer

11500

45

C5+

C4 Splitter

20000

55

Iso + n Butane

Total

71000
245
Table 8. NGL Fractionation Unit Energy Consumption

Solutions to minimize the energy consumption

To minimize primary energy consumption there are several known techniques:

Use process heat integration,

Combine fractionation of NGL with cogeneration.

These techniques can be future improved with the recovery of waste heat from an external source such as gas
turbine exhaust gases if available close to the fractionation unit.
The first two approaches are compared with reboiling using pressurized hot water produced in a direct-fired heater.
NGL fractionation with heat integration
The following scheme shows the line up of the unit with heat integration used at one location. The main part of the
butane splitter reboiler duty is performed using heat rejected by the debutaniser condenser with trim heating using hot
oil.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 15

C3

Propane
80 t/h

Ethane
65 t/h

i-Butane
20 t/h

integration
NGL Feed
245 t/h

Hot oil

Hot oil

Hot oil

Hot oil
C5+ 45 t/h

Deethaniser

Depropaniser

Debutaniser

n-Butane
35 t/h

C4 splitter

Figure 7: NGL fractionation with heat integration

However, to increase the debutaniser condensing temperature to a useable level the debutaniser pressure and
bottom temperature has to be increased with the consequence that hot oil must be used as heating medium instead of
hot water. The hot oil temperature has to be relatively high so that the efficiency of the direct-fired heater used to heat
the hot oil falls to about 65% cancelling out much of the theoretical advantage.
NGL fractionation energy minimization with cogeneration
Another alternative is plant integration of the process units with utility generation. If the process heat integration of
Figure 7 is abandoned, the scheme becomes that of Figure 8. The temperature of the bottom of the debutaniser column
is low, similar to the other columns, so that it is possible to use low-pressure steam from the LP discharge of a steam
turbine (Figure 9) used for power generation.
C3

Ethane
65 t/h

Propane
80 t/h

LP Steam

LP Steam

i-Butane
20 t/h

NGL Feed
245 t/h

LP Steam

LP Steam
C5+ 45 t/h

Deethaniser

Depropaniser

Debutaniser

C4 splitter

Figure 8: NGL Fractionation with cogeneration

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 16

n-Butane
35 t/h

63 bar abs

Boiler(s)

440C

G 14 MW
150C
Preheaters

5 bar abs

Reboilers

Figure 9: Cogeneration of electrical power and LP steam

High-pressure steam produced in a boiler is used to produce electric power and LP steam. The boiler efficiency is
high because the water inlet temperature is low. With the same fuel consumption as the reference scheme with a directfired hot water heater and the scheme using process heat integration and hot oil, it is possible to produce 14000 kW of
electric power in addition.
Comparison of solutions
Table 9 compares the merits of three configurations that are:

Reference case: No integration and use of hot water for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater.

Process heat integration (DeC4/C4 Splitter) and use of hot oil for reboiling produced in a direct-fired heater,

Cogeneration.

The options are ranked in Table 9: 1 for the best, 2 for the second, 3 for the last
No integration
(Reference)

Process
integration

Cogeneration

125

170

125

Hot water

Hot oil

LP steam

88000

88000

88000

Electrical power production (kW)

14000

Efficiency

CAPEX

OPEX

Operability

Safety

Scheme
Highest column bottom temperature (C)
Heating medium
Fuel consumption (kW)

Reliability

Gastech 2005

2
1
Table 9. Comparison of NGL Fractionation Unit Energy Supply Schemes

Paradowski 17

Heat recovery from GT exhaust gases

Heat recovery from GT exhaust gases in a Waste Heat Recovery Unit (WHRU) requires the presence of GTs near the
fractionation plant. If possible it would be the best solution as process heat is provided with no perhaps zero fuel
consumption.
Scheme

No integration
(Reference)

Process
integration

Cogeneration

1
3
Table 10: Adaptabilty to use with GT exhaust WHRU

The comparison in Table 9 would remain valid but in this case hot water would be the best heating medium.
Concluding remarks
The increase of the cost of energy makes it necessary to reconsider the cogeneration alternative. Even without gas
turbines the cogeneration option is attractive.
PROPANE REFRIGERATION AND ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE
Once extracted, NGL has to be stored before shipment. The C5+ fraction is in most instances stored together with
the stabilized condensate from the inlet separation. Atmospheric storage of stabilized condensate is the standard
solution. Ethane, when extracted, is most frequently sent under gaseous state to the steam cracker.
For small inventories of LPG, pressurized storage may be used, but indisputably, the most delicate storage is
refrigerated storage at atmospheric pressure, required when LPG has to be stored in large quantities. This is the case for
LNG Plants, or for large gas treatment plants treating rich feedstock.
In addition to the refrigeration required to compensate for heat ingress through the tanks insulation, chilling must be
provided to cool the LPG before sending it to the tanks.
In this case study, we have considered and compared three options for the cooling of propane run-down and
subsequent storage.
o

Closed Loop system with vacuum conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor

Closed Loop system with the refrigeration compressor suction above atmospheric pressure

Semi-open loop with conditions at the suction of the refrigeration compressor at atmospheric pressure

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 18

Closed Propane refrigeration cycle

Overall Power Consumption: 5,700 kW

Propane

Propane
BOG

8.5 bar
2.4 bar

1.3 t/h
0.7 bar

Propane
Rundown
160 t/h

Figure 10: Closed propane refrigeration cycle scheme

Figure 10 depicts an independent propane cycle that cools down the propane rundown before it is sent to the
atmospheric pressure storage tanks. The propane cycle compressor comprises, in most instances, three compression
stages: low, medium and high pressure suction stages. The boil-off of propane from the storage tank is compressed and
condensed, for example, against low-pressure propane. The low pressure stage suction pressure can be below, or above
atmospheric pressure, depending on the location of the final let-down valve.
Semi-open propane loop

Overall Power Consumption: 5,400 kW

Propane
BOG

8.9 bar
2.7 bar

10 t/h
1.0 bar

Propane
Rundown
160 t/h

Figure 11: Semi-open propane loop scheme

The concept illustrated in Figure 11 uses the propane run-down itself as the source of refrigerant in a series of kettle
exchangers. The entire propane production is vaporized, compressed and condensed. Part of the condensed liquid is
recycled as refrigerant while the remainder, approximately equivalent to the rundown and condensed BOG is chilled and
cooled before being sent to the storage tank. The boil-off from the storage tank is mixed with the vapour from the last
chiller and sent to the low-pressure stage of the propane compressor that is naturally operated at atmospheric pressure.
The main advantage of this solution is the cancellation of the previous boil-off gas recovery system and start up from
atmospheric pressure without flaring, thereby leading to a reduction in CAPEX. Such a system has been recently
implemented by Technip in an LNG Plant.
Gastech 2005

Paradowski 19

Comparison of solutions
Table 11 ranks the three options against operational and investment criteria.
CLOSED LOOP
Vacuum

CLOSED LOOP
Atmospheric

SEMI-OPEN
LOOP

0.7 bar a

1.2 bar a

1.0 bar a

CAPEX

OPEX

Operability process stability

Operability Availability

Safety

Scheme
LP C3 Suction Pressure

Total

11
8
7
Table 11: Comparison of Refrigeration Schemes for Propane Atmospheric Storage

CONCLUSION
NGL recovery from natural gas is an industry that brings together different processes, types of equipment and
multiple operating constraints. NGL projects require constant innovation and adaptation of technology to solve complex
problems. Although licensed technologies have an important place, the nature of the NGL industry leaves less room for
licensed technologies than in refining or petrochemicals.
An EPC Contractor such as Technip, that has maintained its technical capability to evaluate the consequences of the
choices, has an important role to play at least during the EPC phase. Project execution plans which adopt design
competition principles up to EPC award are an interesting alternative to the widely used prescriptive FEED route to EPC.
Clients that have adopted a design competition approach have obtained improved plant designs with reduced schedules.
A comparison of solutions by EPC contractors under the pressure of competition is the best way to obtain a clear view of
the situation. Such clients have come to accept that the necessity of competition makes it mandatory to leave some
major choices open until the end of the design competition.
Success factors in an NGL recovery project
There are many success factors and we do not claim to know all of them. From the experience on NGL recovery
projects we wish to express some of them that are not obvious:

A good understanding of the Clients objectives and requirements is necessary. It is a starting point to develop
solutions. Many options are available, have been used on previous jobs, or are being developed to enhance
profitability.

Understand the requirements: the requirements on the quality of the products are many times expressed in terms of
a minimum specification: for example C2/C3 < 0.01; then nobody wonders about what if C2/C3=0.005; what is the
benefit if any. Many times surpassing the minimum can be easy, not costly and bring far better operability.

Compare solutions using life cycle cost: Whatever the energy cost, the main and best criteria for selection remains
the minimum overall cost to the operator. The only possibility to bring more resilient solutions back into the
competition is to make comparisons based on life cycle cost. As large as some gas reserves may seem to be, they
are of course limited and the cost of the feed gas at plant inlet is never negligible.

Operability comes first: Flaring costs a fortune and gives a poor image of the industry; producing less than expected
can jeopardize months of optimisation. It is very difficult to put figures on operability but it is a prime factor that can
only be taken into account by experienced and qualified engineers and plant operators. Today the situation is such
that managers that have a limited experience of plant operation make decisions that do not take the operability
factor with sufficient consideration. The liquefied gases industry is beginning to evaluate the consequences of the

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 20

lack of qualified technical personnel and is trying to find solutions to mitigate the phenomena, at a time when many
senior engineers and operators are leaving or have already left.
Use of new technologies

Of course it is exciting to be a front-runner and often it pays to increase size, efficiency and go for new technologies.
Today new technologies are well accepted and it is good news. There is only one factor that shall never be forgotten,
it is that the use of new technologies is not an aim it is a means to an end.

In the same way proven technologies are not necessarily old fashioned and shall be allowed to compete as well.

Experience is not frozen knowledge; it is a practically based starting point that can be useful in evaluating new
technologies.

Methodology
Methodology is of course of prime importance but it has to be specifically defined for each new projects.
Collaboration between Client-Contractor-Suppliers
Collaboration between all the participants: client, contractor and suppliers is a must. Some management techniques
such as team building can help, but good will is the essential ingredient.
During the execution of a contract after the first weeks, difficulties may show up, sometimes it is not very easy to
have the process licensor involved at this stage. Problem solving methods based on a comparison of options similar to
those presented in this paper should be used from the very beginning.

Gastech 2005

Paradowski 21