Comparative Economic Investigation Options for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Production from Natural Gas Liquids
American Journal of Chemical Engineering
Volume 3, Issue 2-1, March 2015, Pages: 55-69
Received: Feb. 22, 2015; Accepted: Mar. 18, 2015; Published: Jun. 30, 2015
Views 2727      Downloads 82
Authors
A. B. Raheem, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia; Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
A. Hassan, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
S. A. Samsudin, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Z. Z. Noor, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
A. Adebobajo, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
There is new trend in the value of oil and gas in the world, with the value of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) soaring higher. It is due to its uses as a potential fuel in the several parts of the world, its demand in the petrochemical industries for plastics and automotive composites productions, and other uses. These results in steadily increases in price. There is also increase in volume of feed gas, which demands efficient LPG processing and recovery technology. This paper mainly focuses on comparative economic investigation options for Liquefied Petroleum Gas plant, which processes feed from natural gas wells and dehydrating units to produce Liquefied Petroleum Gas along with natural gasoline having a higher value as separate product. Recovery of LPG is possible but raises both the initial cost of plant and operational cost considerably. The value of LPG recovered should be high enough to widen the operating margins between the processing costs and the market price for which the recovered liquids can be sold. Therefore, the most economic means of extracting this product must be used. This was done using two alternatives; the Conventional Fractionation process and Single column overhead recycle process (SCORE). Both alternatives were simulated with Hysys and are analyzed based on product recovery level, energy required and fixed capital cost. There are two feeds to the plant, one from the natural gas wells and the other from dehydrating units of natural gas processing plants with a total flow rate of 6.99 MMSCFD. Analysis of result from modeling shows that Single column overhead recycle process has a total product recovery of 97.2 % while Conventional fractionation process has a total recovery of 88.5 %, the require energy margin between the alternatives is about 38.9 % in favor of conventional process and the fixed capital cost is in the favor of Single column process. Sensitive to choosing the most economic option of LPG recovery between the conventional process and SCORE process is the recovery level of LPG from each of the options, total energy required and the cost of the equipment. From the analysis, it shows that, it is more economical to use the Single column overhead recycle process, as compared to conventional fractionation process.
Keywords
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Plant, Dehydrating Units, Conventional Fractionation Process, Single Column Overhead Recycle Process, Hysys
To cite this article
A. B. Raheem, A. Hassan, S. A. Samsudin, Z. Z. Noor, A. Adebobajo, Comparative Economic Investigation Options for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Production from Natural Gas Liquids, American Journal of Chemical Engineering. Special Issue:Developments in Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Sector of the Oil and Gas Industry. Vol. 3, No. 2-1, 2015, pp. 55-69. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.s.2015030201.17
References
[1]
Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPG, 2010.
[2]
M. R. Fenske, "Fractionation of straight-run Pennsylvania gasoline", Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol.24 Pp. 482, 1932.
[3]
R. M. Ahmad, A. Majed, E. D. H. Osama, S. F. Marcos, and M. Amir – Usman, “Fractionation of Natural Gas Liquids to produce LPG" TPG4140 Natural Gas, Norway, 2011.
[4]
K. Eldar, F. Feby and S. Juejing, "Process Design and Economic Investigation of LPG Production from Natural Gas Liquids (NGL)" TKP4170 Process design, Norway, 2010.
[5]
Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPG-subtilis. 2012.
[6]
Petroleum Fuel Facilities. MIL-HDBK-1022A, Department of defense of the United States, 1999, p. 34.
[7]
J. D. Wilkinson, H. M. Hudson, K. T. Cuellar, and R.N. Pitman, "Next Generation Processes for NGL/LPG Recovery", Proceedings of the 77th GPA Annual Convention, pp 1-8, 2002.
[8]
J. D. Wilkinson and H. M. Hudson, U.S., Patent No. 7,155,931, 2002.
[9]
J. D. Wilkinson, H. M. Hudson and K. T. Cuellar, U.S., Patent Application Nos. 11/144,728; 60/810,244; and 60/812,686, 2002.
[10]
A.C. Christiansen, S. Skogestad and K. Lien, "Complex Distillation Arrangements: Extending the Petlyuk ideas'', Computers and Chem. Engr., Pp. 21, Suppl., S237-S242. (Supplement from symposium PSE-97/ESCAPE-7, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 25-29, 1997.
[11]
A.C. Christiansen, S. Skogestad and K. Lien, "Partitioned Petlyuk arrangements for quaternary separations'', Proc. Symposium Distillation and Absorption 97, Published by I Chem. E, UK. Maastricht, Netherlands. Pp. 745-756, 1997.
[12]
M. Peters and K. Timmerhaus, "Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers", Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill International, New York, Pp. 910, 1991.
[13]
E. R. Gilliland, "Optimum feed-plate composition in multicomponent rectification", Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol.32 Pp. 918, 1940.
[14]
N. Grant and M. Santa, "LNG Fractionation Process and Optimization of the Turbo expander Unit", Proceedings of the 82nd GPA Annual Convention, Pp. 1-7, 2008.
[15]
T. Richard, B. Richard, W. Wallace and A. S. Joseph, "Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes", Third Edition. Prentice Hall, Pp. 1088, 2008.
[16]
I. J. Halvorson and S. Skogestad, "Distillation Theory", from http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/publications/1999/DistillationTheory/original/distillationtheory.pdf
[17]
J. W. Holmes, M. L. Spears and J.A. Bullin, "Sweetening LPGs with Amines," Chemical Engineering Progress Conf. http://www.opisnet.com/methodology.asp#nglforwards 1984.
[18]
S. Parkash, "Petroleum fuels manufacturing", McGraw-Hill, New York, Pp. 3-11, 2003.
[19]
Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGL, 2012.
[20]
T. James, S. Phil, and M. Erin, "Natural Gas Processing: The Crucial Link between Natural Gas Production and Its Transportation to Market, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas", 2006.
[21]
Argus NGL Americans Methodology from http://web04.us.argusmedia.com/ArgusStaticContent//Meth/NGL%20AmericasMeth-Latest.pdf
[22]
Petroleum Fuel Facilities, MIL-HDBK-1022A, Department of defense of the United States, Pp. 34, 1999.
[23]
K.T. Cuellar, H.M. Hudson, and J.D. Wilkinson, “Economical Options for Recovering NGL/LPG at LNG Receiving Terminals”, Proceedings of the 86th GPA Annual Convention, Pp. 2-10, 2007.
[24]
CME prices from http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/petrochemicals/mnt-belvieuiso-butane-5-decimal-opis-swap futures_quotes_settlements_futures.htm 2010.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186