9 replies to this topic

[UETLHR]

Dear All,

We are in a process to select a process for LPG extraction from sweet gas. I have never worked with Ortloff process, however as per my knowledge Ortloff process gives better propane recovery as compared to open-art process. But ortloff process is more expensive interms of capital investment and license fee.
I would appreciate if any of you could share your experiences/openions regarding merits and demerits of Ortloff process.

Best Regards,

[Zauberberg]

It all depends on what are the conditions (pressure, temperature) of inlet gas stream, and what is the composition of course. For some cases, cryogenic expander plant is simply not an option - looking from economy perspective. You haven't told us about any process data from your case, and what are the C3/C4 recovery levels required for your project.

I would try to get a few budgetary proposals from different licensors (e.g. AET, Ortloff, Black&Veatch) and compare costs of different technologies. I tend to disagree that Ortloff's plants are more expensive than open-art units since they have accumulated a lot of experience and optimization in this area. But again, it all depends on what do you have as input and what do you need from such a plant.

[UETLHR]

Dear ZuberBerg thanks alot for your reply. Kindly note that inlet plant pressure is 1450 psig at a temperature of 100 F. Also process is going to be designed for 150 MMSCFD gas with Molar composition of Propane and Butane of .08 and .0463% respectively. All we need is LPG with Propane and Butane ratio of 60:40 in Product Stream along with stabilized condensate.

I may also add that we have compared open art and ortloff process but as Ortloff is UOP patent technology and require a handsome yearly license fee, it appears to be more costly from budgetry point of view.

[Zauberberg]

In that case you have a clear picture. The only additional concern I would have, is whether the "open-art" process can meet product specs guarantees at specified and turndown conditions. If that is confirmed, you have a straightforward decision.

The gas appears to be very lean and that is probably why the economics doesn't look so attractive.

[Propacket]

UETLHR,

Attached document will help you understand distinctions of ORTLOFF processes.

As a process engineer, i will first ask myself " Why should i go for ORTLOFF or any other licensed process?" They are famous for achieving guaranteed high LPG recoveries (almost 100%). At the same time, they have solved most of the operating problems one could get at cryogenic temperatures .e.g. CO2 freeze out. As far as your problem is concerned, product specification is simple. You don't need elevated LPG recovery or any other specialty ORTLOFF is famous for. If LPG production/recoveries is not a constraint, 60:40 C3/C4 ratio is easily achievable by manipulating C3 and C4 recovery. Just for your information, your gas is very lean and can hardly give 11 tons/day of LPG even at 100% recovery.

http://www.uop.com/o...GRecovGPA98.pdf

Edited by P.Engr, 21 December 2010 - 07:57 AM.

[ncarrascob]

Hello:

I think you can use a GAS SUBCOOLED PROCESS (This is an open-art technology) because the inlet gas pressure is high enough to condense a lot of C3+.

YOU CAN ACHIEVE MORE THAN 90% C3+ RECOVERY WITHOUT EXTERNAL REFRIGERATION
ALsO, I THINK THAT YOUR PROCESS CAN BE PROFITABLE.

You can look for information about "LAS MALVINAS" cryogenic plant IN PERU. the inlet pressure and gas composition are quite simililar to the data you have supplied then.

[Zauberberg]

GSP process is not a choice for C3 recovery, due to its configuration. SCORE (a single column OHR) process would probably work but, as discussed earlier, if there are other open-art technologies that can recover Propane in economically attractive way, that's probably the way to go.

SCORE process - based on my experience - is very efficient, but it is very much complicated as well. There are plenty of variables that the operator needs to take care of, that C3 slippage may occur quite often. We have discussed with Ortloff people many times about potential improvements of the original design, and some of the ideas look like they would work well: simplifying the unit configuration and, even more important, the overall control philosophy, without compromising Propane recovery. Perhaps we'll see some new designs from Ortloff soon.

[UETLHR]

Dear All

I'm really thankful to you for taking your time out. Also i'm apologetic for not providing detailed feed compositional analysis. Here I have attached detailed analysis and calculations. Kindly have a look at attached excel sheet, it will certainly provide a better forcast.

GSP process is not a choice for C3 recovery, due to its configuration. SCORE (a single column OHR) process would probably work but, as discussed earlier, if there are other open-art technologies that can recover Propane in economically attractive way, that's probably the way to go.

SCORE process - based on my experience - is very efficient, but it is very much complicated as well. There are plenty of variables that the operator needs to take care of, that C3 slippage may occur quite often. We have discussed with Ortloff people many times about potential improvements of the original design, and some of the ideas look like they would work well: simplifying the unit configuration and, even more important, the overall control philosophy, without compromising Propane recovery. Perhaps we'll see some new designs from Ortloff soon.

Attached Files

•  Compositional Analysis.xls   32KB   80 downloads

[Zauberberg]

The gas is very, very lean. Is this the actual composition or it has arisen from some of the reservoir models? You are in such situation that, if C3/C4 content in reality deviates from the composition given above, you might be investing money in a project that could easily become a misfortune. So, the task No.1 would be to confirm the expected/actual range of composition, depending on pressure/temperature and other factors which normally affect composition of a gas stream.

Once when you have that, I'd recommend you to get in touch with any of the technology vendors mentioned above (Ortloff, Randall Gas Technologies/ABB, AET, Black & Veatch, Technip, Fluor - see attached link to the Gas Processes Handbook where various NGL technology licensors are listed) and confirm the feasibility of LPG recovery. You'll get a really good and valuable feedback from there.

In parallel, you can try to develop your own design (an "open-art" one) and see where it will bring you at. I am also very much interested to see your concept and process configuration you are proposing, as it is quite challenging to recover LPG from a gas stream that virtually contains C3 and C4 in such small concentrations that are close to the analyzer instrument accuracy/sensitivity range.

Is there an economic incentive to recover 230 tons of LPG per day?



http://www.aimsgt.co...ndbook_2004.pdf

[NGL Licensor1]

Dear All,

We are in a process to select a process for LPG extraction from sweet gas. I have never worked with Ortloff process, however as per my knowledge Ortloff process gives better propane recovery as compared to open-art process. But ortloff process is more expensive interms of capital investment and license fee.
I would appreciate if any of you could share your experiences/openions regarding merits and demerits of Ortloff process.

Best Regards,