GE Texaco Gasifier Feed To A Lurgi Metha PDF

GBH Enterprises, Ltd.
GE /Texaco Gasifier Feed to a Lurgi

Methanol Plant and its Effect on
Methanol Production
Case Study: #06812416GB/H
Process Information Disclaimer

Information contained in this publication or as otherwise supplied to Users is
believed to be accurate and correct at time of going to press, and is given in
good faith, but it is for the User to satisfy itself of the suitability of the Product for
its own particular purpose. GBHE gives no warranty as to the fitness of the
Product for any particular purpose and any implied warranty or condition
(statutory or otherwise) is excluded except to the extent that exclusion is
prevented by law. GBHE accepts no liability for loss, damage or personnel injury
caused or resulting from reliance on this information. Freedom under Patent,
Copyright and Designs cannot be assumed.
Refinery Process Stream Purification Refinery Process Catalysts Troubleshooting Refinery Process Catalyst Start-Up / Shutdown
Activation Reduction In-situ Ex-situ Sulfiding Specializing in Refinery Process Catalyst Performance Evaluation Heat & Mass
Balance Analysis Catalyst Remaining Life Determination Catalyst Deactivation Assessment Catalyst Performance
Characterization Refining & Gas Processing & Petrochemical Industries Catalysts / Process Technology - Hydrogen Catalysts /
Process Technology Ammonia Catalyst Process Technology - Methanol Catalysts / process Technology Petrochemicals
Specializing in the Development & Commercialization of New Technology in the Refining & Petrochemical Industries
Web Site: www.GBHEnterprises.com
CONTENTS
0
Methanol Synthesis Introduction:
Executive Summary
Design Basis
2.1.1 Train I Design Basis
2.1.2 Train II Design Basis
2.1.3 Train III Design Basis
2.2
Design Philosophy
2.2.1 Operability Review
2.3
Assumptions
2.4
Train IV Flowsheet
2.4.1 CO2 Removal
Discussion
3.1
Natural Gas Consumption Figures

3.1.1 Base Case
3.1.2 Case 1 Coal Gasification in Service
3.1.3 Case 2 Coal Gasification in Service No CO2 Export
3.2
Methanol Production Figures

3.2.1 Base Case
3.3
85% Natural Gas Availability
3.4
3.5
CO2 Emissions
3.5.1 Base Case
3.6
Specific Consumption Figures

3.6.1 Base Case
3.6.2 Case 1 Coal Gasification and CO2 Import
3.6.3 Case 2 Coal Gasification and No CO2 Import
3.7
Train IV Synthesis Gas Composition
Further Work
Conclusion
APPENDIX
Important Stream Data Material Balance Stream Data
Texaco Gasifier with HP Steam Raising Boiler
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL
Material Balance Considerations
Methanol Synthesis Introduction:

The synthesis gas is fed to the methanol synthesis converter at about 130 C.
The converter is of different design (typically in cascades) depending on the
particular technology applied.
The compressed gas is preheated to reaction temperatures inside the tubes as it
flows through the hot catalyst bed. The hot reacted gas leaves the converter and
provides heat to the saturator water circuit and the loop interchanger before
finally being cooled.
Crude methanol is separated from the uncondensed gases and the gases are
recirculated back to the converter via the circulator.
Figure 1: Conventional Synthesis Loop:
1. Executive Summary
An operator is reviewing options for the utilization of synthesis gas derived from
coal gasification in order to maintain methanol production during periods of low
natural gas availability.
The operator has requested that GBH Enterprises review the options for
integration of such a feed gas to the existing production facilities on their site and
conduct a conceptual engineering study to identify the optimal flowsheet
configuration and determine if there are any specific plant limitations.
The key conclusions from this study are that,
Operation utilizing a coal gasifier is possible.
Production rate will be lowered from the present maximum achievable

rate due to the replacement of the purge gas exported to train IV with
natural gas as reformer fuel.
Addition of a coal gasifier and the effect on the fuel balance on trains I
through III will increase CO2 emissions.
Under circumstances where train IV is operated on the gasified coal feed

and 100% of normal natural gas is available, site production will be
increased to 11,331 mtpd, an increase of 7% over present maximum site
production.
If between 91-92% of normal natural gas flowrate is available, then site

production with the coal gasified feed to train IV will be the same as the
base case considered as part of this study.
An operability review has been conducted to determine the effect of

losing one or more of trains I through III and the effect that this will have
on train IV.
2. Design Basis
The client have supplied to GBH Enterprises, the following syn gas analysis for
the gasified coal feed,
Parameter
Units
CO
H2O
CO2
H2
CH4
N2
Ar
Parameter
Vapor Fraction
Temperature
Pressure
Feed Rate
Feed Rate
H2/CO Ratio
R Ratio
Flowrate
kmol/hr
2,028.4
2,124.9
1,553.6
2,080.9
8.6
26.7
4.8
Composition
mol %
25.9
27.1
19.8
26.6
0.1
0.3
0.1
Units
n/a
C
Bar
kgmol/hr
kg/hr
n/a
n/a
Value
1.0
30
32.81
7,828
119,965
1.026
0.147
Plant data for trains I through III has been taken from historical plant audits; the
plant was operating at a refined methanol production figure of 2,322 mtpd.
The data from the previous audit was at a refined production rate of 2,747 mtpd
which is more representative of maximum rate operation.
All catalyst lives, and hence activities and pressure drops factors have been
based on these audits.
2.1.1 Train I Design Basis

The following has been used as the design basis for Train I based on the
available data from historical audits.
Natural Gas Feed Rate
CO2
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
N2
3,868
0.18
93.29
5.12
0.23
0.06
1.12
kmol/hr
mol %
Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate
57.5
kmol/hr
Steam Flow Rate to Reformer

Steam to Carbon Ratio
Reformer Inlet Temperature
Methane Slip Ex Reformer
Reformer Exit Pressure
Natural Gas Fuel Rate
Heat loss
240
3.29
595
3.22
20.64
429
2 %
mt/hr
C
mol % dry
Bara
kmol/hr
Note that the heat loss from the reformer is defined as the percentage of the total
heat released in the reformer to ambient. As such it will have an effect on the
amount of variable fuel (in this case natural gas) that will be added to the
reformer. The same basis has been used for trains II and III.
Syn gas rate
Circulation Rate
Crude Methanol Production
Refined Methanol Production
Purge Gas Rate
Loop Carbon Efficiency
15,930
60,180
2,546
2,502
4,587
93.7
kmol/hr
kmol/hr
mtpd
mtpd
kmol/hr
%
Note that the Crude Methanol Production figure stated above is the amount of
methanol present in the crude methanol and no allowance for water has been
included.
2.1.2 Train II Design Basis

The following has been used as the design basis for Train II based on the
CO2
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
N2
4,289
0.15
93.36
4.83
0.14
0.26
1.26
kmol/hr
mol %
Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate 53.7
kmol/hr

Heat loss
242.3
3.00
556
3.40
20.34
240
2 %
mt/hr
Syn gas rate

Circulation Rate
Purge Gas Rate
17,433
64,730
2,793
2,747
5,158
98.35
kmol/hr
kmol/hr
mtpd
mtpd
kmol/hr
%
C
mol % dry
Bara
kmol/hr
2.1.3 Train III Design Basis

The following has been used as the design basis for Train III based on the
CO2
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
N2
4,435
0.20
93.28
4.94
0.34
0.27
0.97
kmol/hr
mol %
Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate
48.3
kmol/hr

Heat loss
263.4
3.13
547
3.49
20.6
335
2 %
mt/hr
Syn gas rate

Circulation Rate
Purge Gas Rate
18,158
74,410
2,981
2,930
4,946
96.03
kmol/hr
kmol/hr
mtpd
mtpd
kmol/hr
%
C
mol % dry
Bara
kmol/hr
2.2
Design Philosophy
The philosophy that has been developed for this study is that the synthesis gas
generated from the coal gasification unit will be treated to remove any impurities
that would have a detrimental effect on the downstream methanol synthesis
catalysts. CO2 would be removed and purge gas (from trains I through III) added
such that the stoichiometric ratio of the combined synthesis gas is suitable for the
production of methanol. For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that
a combined synthesis gas stoichiometric ratio (R ratio) of around 1.95 will be
suitable.
Any excess CO2 will be compressed to around 80-85 bara prior to injection into
trains II and III. The option of injection into train I has been rejected as the CO2
will have to be compressed to over 100 bar, increasing both the CAPEX and
OPEX of the project. However, this option requires further consideration in order
to maintain production when either train II or III is shut down.
2.2.1
Operability Review
It has been assumed that the low gas availability operation of the operators site
will include trains I through III operating with all available natural gas whilst train
IV operates on the synthesis gas generated from the gasification of the coal
mixed with purge gas from the other three trains.
Analysis has been conducted assuming that one of the other plants is off line, for
instance as part of the turnaround schedule or is tripped. If train I is offline, then
there will be a shortage of hydrogen in the purge gas being exported to train IV.
Under this scenario, the coal gasifier will have to be turned down such that the
combined syn gas being feed to the loop is stoichiometric. It is estimated that
train IV can be operated at around 80% of normal rates (1,815 mtpd) with CO2
being exported at a reduced rate. A similar effect is seen if either train II or III is
offline.
Under such circumstances, a review of whether CO2 should be exported to trains
II and III need to be conducted in order to determine whether it is better to
temporary halt this export and thereby increase the amount of purge gas
available and maintain train IV gasified rate at its maximum value.
If train II or III is offline, then there will be a reduction in the amount of hydrogen
available for train IV syn gas stoichiometry correction. Furthermore, half the train
IV export CO2 will have to be vented as it no longer can be imported to trains II or
III (depending on which plant is off line).
If two trains out of trains I, II or III are offline, then the amount of purge gas
available to be sent to train IV will clearly be reduced. Under this scenario, train
IV rates would have to be dropped to around 80% of maximum whilst around 428
kmol/hr of CO2 is removed and vented to provide a stoichiometric syn gas.
2.3
Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made as part of this study,
Trains I through III are capable of operation with a synthesis gas with an
R ratio (stoichiometric ratio) as low as 2. This will be achieved by the
addition of any excess CO2 that has to be removed from the gasified
synthesis gas being feed to train IV.
It is assumed that the coal gasification unit will be self sufficient in terms
of steam generation and consumption.
It is assumed that sufficient steam of the appropriate pressure and

superheat temperature will be available for the operation of the train IV
synthesis loop circulator.
The effect of the addition of the CO2 to either train II and III on the
performance of the circulator has not been evaluated as part of this
study. Clearly as CO2 is added, the molecular weight of the circulating
gas will increase and therefore, assuming that the circulators are
operated at maximum circulation rate or shaft power, there will be a loss
of circulation rate. This will reduce the loop carbon efficiency and the
methanol production from the syn loops.
The loop carbon efficiency of train IV has been assumed to be 95%. It is

assumed that the loop carbon efficiency will not change when operation
on the gasifier synthesis gas.
The natural gas fuel utilized on train IV has not been considered as part
of this study as insufficient details of the fuel utilization and the flowsheet
are available to GBH Enterprises. It is assumed that any natural gas that
is utilized on train IV during normal operation as fuel will continue to be
used as fuel with the coal gasification unit in service.
No account of the purge gas from train IV syn loop has been made. It is
assumed that the flow is small due to the stoichiometric nature of the syn
gas generated by the front end of train IV. Furthermore, it is assumed
that any purge gas will be used as fuel gas on train IV front end under
either the normal operating conditions or with the coal gasification unit in
service.
It is assumed that under normal operating conditions (i.e.: 100% natural

gas availability) that 30,000 Nm/hr of purge gas from trains II and III is
exported to train IV front end. It is assumed that this purge gas is taken
from trains II and III in a 50:50 split. It is assumed that no purge gas is
exported from train I to train IV during normal operation.
The hydrogen recycle (to purification) rates have not been altered from the
base case flowsheets developed as part of this study even when plant
rates have been altered. Optimization of these rates will provide some
additional purge gas for use as fuel on the reformer but the overall effect
on the fuel requirements will be small. This is deemed to be a second
order effect on the flowsheets.
The efficiencies for trains I through IV have been assumed to be 98.3,

98.3, 98.3 and 98% respectively.
The natural gas feed rate to train IV has been calculated from a methanol
production rate of 2,400 mtpd assuming the above distillation efficiency as
well as,
o Methane slip from the reformer is 0.5 mol % dry,
o The loop has a carbon efficiency of 95%.
2.4
Train IV Flowsheet
For the purpose of this study, the train IV flowsheet has been assumed to consist
of a coal gasifier utilizing the oxygen available from the existing ASU, followed by
a CO2 removal system. It has been assumed that this will be a wet CO2 removal
system. The CO2 removal system will be required to remove some of the excess
CO2 present in the gasified gas to enable correction of the train IV syn gas
stoichiometry.
It is recommended that provision is made to allow surplus CO2 to be exported to

either trains II or III; this is required under some operating scenarios and also
potentially will allow for the sale of CO2. The bulk of the gasified coal feed is then
mixed with purge gas from trains I through III before being passed to the train IV
synthesis loop.
It is assumed that downstream of the CO2 removal system, a purification unit will
be installed to remove any residual impurities present in the syn gas.
Consideration should be given to the elimination of any heavy metals, sulfur,
chlorides and carbonyl compounds. GBH Enterprises will review the purification
requirements for this duty if this project proceeds to the front end engineering
phase of the project. This will ensure that the train IV synthesis catalyst is not
poisoned and should achieve its required life.
An outline flowsheet is presented below,
Purge Gas Import
Gasifier
CO2
Removal
Gas
Purification
Synthesis
Loop
CO2 Export
A bypass is required around the CO2 removal system such that the amount of
CO2 that is removed can be controlled. It is expected that around 2,186 kmol/hr
of syn gas will have to be passed to the CO2 removal system, which represents
around 28% of the total gasified gas.
2.4.1 CO2 Removal

The CO2 removal system will allow for removal of CO2 from part of the gasified
gas and hence can be exported to trains II and III. This will potentially increase
the production from these trains whilst ensuring an optimal combined syn gas for
train IV synthesis loop.
It has been estimated that 400 kmol/hr (422 mtpd) of CO2 will have to be shifted
and that 428 kmol/hr (452 mtpd) will have to be removed in order to provide an
optimised syn gas composition inlet train IV synthesis loop. It is assumed that for
the cases with CO2 export, the CO2 is split evenly between trains II and III.
Discussion
As part of this study, a number of cases have been considered as detailed above
in the operability review. These cases include,
Base Case This case represents the operation of trains I through IV on

natural gas and assumes that 100% of the required natural gas is
available.
Case 1 Trains I through III operating on a natural gas feed assuming

that 75% of the natural gas required for the base case is available.
o All of this natural gas is fed to trains I through III.
o Train IV operating on a gasified coal feed with CO2 export to
trains II and III and purge gas addition from trains I through III
to obtain the correct synthesis gas stoichiometry.
o CO2 is exported to trains II and III. CO2 export to train I has not
been considered as the train I loop runs at a higher pressure
than trains II and III and therefore would require additional
compression.
o No attempt has been made to optimize the natural gas
utilization between trains I through III and therefore there is
some potential for an incremental increase in methanol
production.
o No attempt has been made to optimize the CO2 distribution
between trains II and III and therefore there is some potential
for an incremental increase in methanol production.
3.1

that 75% of the natural gas required for the base case is available.
o All of this natural gas is fed to trains I through III.
o Train IV operating on a gasified coal feed with no CO2 export to
trains II and III and purge gas addition from trains I through III
to obtain the correct synthesis gas stoichiometry.
o No attempt has been made to optimize the natural gas
utilization between trains I through III and therefore there is
some potential for an incremental increase in methanol
production.
that 85% of the normal natural gas rate for the base case is available.
o Train IV is operated on the gasified coal feed.
o Again no attempt has been made to optimize the natural gas
utilization between trains I through III.
that 100% of the normal natural gas rate is available.
o Train IV is operated on the gasified coal feed.
o Again no attempt has been made to optimize the natural gas
utilization between trains I through III.
Natural Gas Consumption Figures
3.1.1 Base Case

The following table details the natural gas consumption figures for trains I
through IV that have been developed as part of this study for the base case,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Feed
Usage
kmol/hr
3,868
4,289
4,435
3,261
15,853
NG Fuel
Usage
kmol/hr
328
405
538
0
1,271
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
4,196
4,694
4,973
3,261
17,124
Purge To Fuel
kmol/hr
4,520
4,397
4,137
unknown
13,054
The purge to fuel figure represents the purge gas that is utilized as fuel on the
reformer after deducting the purge recycle to the purification section of the plant
and any purge export to train IV.
As noted above in the assumptions, the natural gas used as fuel on train IV has
been ignored for the purpose of this study. It is assumed that sufficient natural
gas to the fuel system on train IV will be supplied in order to raise steam etc.
Furthermore it is assumed that the fuel requirements for train IV (for steam
generation in the duct) operating on a natural gas feed is around the same as will
be required when operating on coal. No indication of the purge gas rate is
available within GBH Enterprises for train IV and therefore this is reported in the
above table as unknown.
The NG total column represents the total expected natural gas usage on trains I
through IV during periods when the plants receive 100% of their natural gas
requirement. The total NG usage figure for all four trains has been calculated as
17,124 kmol/hr.
Assumptions have been made around the heat losses from the train I through III
reformers and that there is no gas utilization elsewhere (including package
boilers and auxiliary burners in the fluegas duct). This will affect the numbers
presented in this report but should not affect the overall conclusions unless the
assumptions made are a long way from the real operations on the site.
The amount of natural gas used as fuel on train IV may impact on the actual
production and consumption figures contained in this report, but should not affect
the overall conclusions.

This case assumes that 75% of the natural gas used as feed and fuel as
calculated above is available for utilization on trains I through III whilst train IV
operates with the gasified coal feed. This means that there is a total of 12,844
kmol/hr of natural gas available. The following table details the natural gas
utilization for trains I through IV under this scenario,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Feed
Usage
kmol/hr
2,976
2,979
3,142
0
9,097
NG Fuel
Usage
kmol/hr
923
1,375
1,449
0
3,747
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
3,899
4,354
4,591
0
12,844
Purge Export
to Train IV
kmol/hr
1,601
2,643
2,451
unknown
6,695
Purge To
Fuel
kmol/hr
1,484
0
0
unknown
1,484
For this case natural gas has been allocated on the same percentage basis as
per the base case above, but assuming that no natural gas is utilized on train IV
with the exception (as noted previously) of any natural requirement for fuel.

This case assumes that 75% of the natural gas used as feed and fuel as
calculated above is available for utilization on trains I through III whilst train IV
operates with the gasified coal feed. This means that there is a total of 12,844
kmol/hr of natural gas available. The following table details the natural gas
utilization for trains I through IV under this scenario,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Feed
Usage
kmol/hr
2,871
3,328
3,485
0
9,684
NG Fuel
Usage
kmol/hr
1,027
1,026
1,108
0
3,161
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
3,898
4,354
4,591
0
12,843
Purge Export
to Train IV
kmol/hr
1,895
2,245
2,225
unknown
6,365
Purge To
Fuel
kmol/hr
1,072
1,360
1,311
unknown
3,743
In this case, there is sufficient purge gas available that some can be recycled
back to the reformer for use as fuel. This enables more natural gas to be used a
feed and hence is used to produce methanol.
3.2
Methanol Production Figures
3.2.1 Base Case

The following table details the methanol production figures for trains I through IV
that have been developed as part of this study for the base case,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
Loop
Production
mtpd
2,550
2,802
3,005
2,449
10,806
Refined
Production
mtpd
2,506
2,756
2,954
2,400
10,616
Carbon
Efficiency
%
93.7
93.5
96.6
95.0
n/a
Note that the loop production figures stated above are for methanol as present in
the crude from the synthesis loop. The refined production figures assume
distillation efficiencies for trains I through IV of 98.3, 98.3, 98.3 and 98%
respectively.
Note that the carbon efficiency of train IV has been assumed to be 95%.
The following table details the natural gas utilization under the conditions
required for case 1, Train I through III operating with natural gas (75% of the
normal rate available) and train IV operating with the gasified coal feed. CO2
export from the CO2 removal stage is assumed and the CO2 is split evenly
between trains II and III.
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
Loop
Production
mtpd
2,052
2,164
2,344
2,390
8,950
Refined
Production
mtpd
2,016
2,128
2,304
2,342
8,790
Carbon
Efficiency
%
98.1
96.3
98.9
95.0
n/a
It should be noted that at these lower distillation throughputs, distillation

efficiency should rise. No account of this effect has been taken into account as
part of this study.
It should be noted that no attempt to optimize the amount of CO2 export from the
front end of train IV to trains II and III has been made. As no details are available
around the design of the train IV syn loop, such an optimization study will have
some fundamental assumptions which may or may not be valid. Directionally,
since the syn loop carbon efficiency of train IV is lower than for trains II and III, it
would be expected that addition of more CO2 to these trains will increase
methanol production from trains II and III whilst there will be an incremental loss
from train IV.
This will lead to a reduction in the purge gas rates available from trains II and III
and therefore will increase the purge export from train I to train IV. This will
increase the amount of natural gas required as fuel on train I and therefore
reduce the amount of natural gas available as feed. This will represent a loss of
methanol production which will offset the additional methanol produced in trains II
and III due to the addition of CO2. This can be reviewed at a later date.
Even with train IV operating with the coal gasification gas, methanol production is
reduced by some 1,826 mtpd, a reduction of 17%. The prime reason for this is
that under the natural gas reduction case considered (75% of the normal
available), there is only 12,674 kmol/hr of carbon (all carbon in feed gas to the
reformers/gasifier) available to be converted to methanol. This compares to
16,566 kmol/hr of carbon normally available when 100% of the natural gas is
available. This is a reduction of 23% in comparison to normal operation.
The following table details the natural gas utilization under the conditions
required for case 1, Train I through III operating with natural gas (75% of the
normal rate available) and train IV operating with the gasified coal feed. Under
this case, no CO2 is exported from the CO2 removal stage to the other plants.
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
Loop
Production
mtpd
1,984
2,245
2,411
2,372
9,012
Refined
Production
mtpd
1,950
2,208
2,370
2,325
8,853
Carbon
Efficiency
%
98.2
96.5
98.7
95.0
n/a
It should be noted that at these lower distillation throughputs, distillation

efficiency should rise. No account of this effect has been taken into account as
part of this study.
Note in this case, the amount of CO2 removed from the syn gas from the gasifier
amounts to 414 kmol/hr to provide additional CO2 for conversion to methanol in
the train IV loop.
In this case, the methanol production is higher than for the case (1) with CO2
recycle to trains II and III. However, there are implications in terms of CO2
emissions which are detailed below. Production is still lower than the base case
as there is less carbon available in the feed gas (13,288 kmol/hr) compared to
the base case value of 16,566 kmol/hr. This is a reduction of 20% I terms of
available carbon in the combined feed gases.
3.3
If 85% of the maximum normally available natural gas can be utilized, then the
overall production from the site will be 9,789 mtpd, which is 92% of the normal
site production level. This utilizes a total of 14,555 kmol/hr of natural gas as feed
and fuel.
3.4
Production (%)
If 100% of the maximum normally available natural gas can be utilized, then the
overall production from the site will be 11,331 mtpd, which is 107% of the normal
site production level. The following graph illustrates the variance of methanol
production against natural gas availability assuming CO2 addition to trains II and
III,
120
12000
110
11000
100
10000
90
9000
80
8000
110
70
80
90
100
Production (%)
Production (mtpd)
Present Production
(mtpd)
NG Availability (%)
On this graph, production as a percentage of present production (10,616 mtpd) is

plotted on the left hand Y axis and actual production is plotted on the right hand
Y axis. This graph illustrates that the breakeven point between 91-92% of
normal natural gas availability. This equates to a natural gas flow to site of
15,668 kmol/hr.
3.5
CO2 Emissions
A review of the CO2 emissions from the four trains has been conducted as CO2
emissions are becoming more important due to the effect of global warming. The
CO2 figures reported below are for the CO2 present in the fluegas from the steam
reformers on trains I through III.
No account of CO2 emissions from on/off site power generation or from train IV
has been included in the analysis.
3.5.1 Base Case
The following table details the CO2 emission figures for trains I through IV that
have been developed as part of this study for the base case,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
CO2 Produced
kmol/hr
1,010
938
1,180
unknown
3,128
Note that these figures represent the CO2 emissions from the fluegas generated
in the radiant box of the reformer and do not include contributions from fired
heaters on the site, auxiliary burner or any part of train IV including train IV offsite
facilities.

have been developed as part of this study for case 1 of this study,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
CO2 Produced
kmol/hr
1,163
1,438
1,529
unknown
4,130
As can be seen the CO2 emissions are increased significantly when operating
the coal gasifier. The major driver for this is the loss of purge gas to fuel which is
replaced by natural gas. Since the natural gas comprises over 93% methane this
increases the CO2 emitted by the plants by some 32% over the base case
presented above.
have been developed as part of this study for case 1 of this study,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
CO2 Removal
Total
CO2 Produced
kmol/hr
1,216
1,268
1,354
unknown
414
4,252
By not recycling the CO2 from the CO2 removal units to trains II and III, the CO2
emissions are increased over and above the CO2 recycle case by 3% and an
increase of 36% over the base case.
3.6
Specific Consumption Figures
3.6.1 Base Case

that have been developed as part of this study for the base case,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
4,196
4,694
4,973
3,261
17,524
Refined
Production
mtpd
2,506
2,756
2,945
2,400
10,616
Specific
Consumption
(kmol/hr)/(mtpd)
1.67
1.70
1.69
1.36
1.65
As noted above, no account of natural gas used as fuel on train IV has been
made as part of this study. This is one reason why the specific consumption
figure for train IV does appear lower than for the other plants.
3.6.2 Case 1 Coal Gasification and CO2 Import
that have been developed as part of this study for case 1 of this study,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
3,899
4,354
4,591
0
12,844
Refined
Production
mtpd
2,016
2,128
2,304
2,342
8,790
Specific
Consumption
(kmol/hr)/(mtpd)
1.93
2.05
1.99
n/a
1.46
The specific consumption figures for case 1 are higher than for the base case
due to the loss of purge gas as fuel for trains I through III. However, the overall
figure is lower for this case in comparison to the base case due to the additional
production from train IV and the fact that the coal is not taken into account.
3.6.3 Case 2 Coal Gasification and No CO2 Import

that have been developed as part of this study for case 2 of this study,
Parameter
Units
Train I
Train II
Train III
Train IV
Total
NG Total
Usage
kmol/hr
3,898
4,354
4,591
0
12,843
Refined
Production
mtpd
1,950
2,208
2,370
2,325
8,853
Specific
Consumption
(kmol/hr)/(mtpd)
2.00
1.97
1.94
n/a
1.45
The figures presented in the above table show a similar specific consumption in
comparison to case detailed above. However, the methanol production figure is
marginally higher due to the additional natural gas that is made available as feed
gas as opposed to be utilised as fuel gas in case 1.
3.7
Train IV Synthesis Gas Composition
Typically the combined syn gas combination being feed to the train IV loop has a
stoichiometric number of 1.95. The composition in the table below has been
calculated for case 1 considered as part of this study and is typical of the other
combined gas compositions,
Parameter
Units
CO
CO2
H2
CH4
N2
Ar
Value
mol % dry
13.65
12.99
64.64
7.80
0.88
0.04
Further Work
As part of this study the following areas of further work have been identified in
order to address issues generated as part of this study or to understand areas of
uncertainty that have been highlighted by this study.
An evaluation of the effect of the addition of CO2 on the molecular weight

and hence the circulation rates achievable on trains II and III.
A confirmation of the design basis natural gas usage (whether as feed or

fuel) and the export of purge gas to train IV is required. This will confirm
the amount of natural gas available to the site and for each plant and
hence the amount available during period of gas shortage.
Confirmation of the performance of train IV with due regard to natural gas

usage and loop performance
Confirmation of the steam balance requirements for the coal gasification

front end proposed for train IV and the effect this will have on the steam
generation/superheating system present on train IV. This will define
whether there is additional natural gas available from train IV on the other
plants during gas shortages.
Determination of the utilization of purge gas from train IV and the usage of
this gas when operating train IV on syn gas derived from the gasification
of coal.
Evaluation of the purge gas requirements for purification for trains I

through III when natural gas utilization is lower than normal.
Confirmation of distillation separation efficiencies, most especially for train

IV.
Re-optimization of the natural gas splits between trains I through III during
periods of low natural gas availability should be performed if the project
proceeds.
Re-optimization of the CO2 import split between trains II and III during
periods of low natural gas availability should be performed if the project
proceeds.
Optimization of the amount of CO2 removal from train IV front end and
optimisation of this to trains II and III.
Conclusion
The key conclusions from this study are that,
Operation utilizing a coal gasifier is possible.
Production rate will be lowered from the present maximum achievable rate
due to the replacement of the purge gas exported to train IV with natural
gas as reformer fuel.
Addition of a coal gasifier and the effect on the fuel balance on trains I
through III will increase CO2 emissions.
Under circumstances where train IV is operated on the gasified coal feed

and 100% of normal natural gas is available, site production will be
increased to 11,331 mtpd, an increase of 7% over present maximum site
production.
If between 91-92% of normal natural gas flowrate is available, then site

production with the coal gasified feed to train IV will be the same as the
base case considered as part of this study.
An operability review has been conducted to determine the effect of losing

one or more of trains I through III and the effect that this will have on train
IV.
APPENDIX
The Important stream data follows:
MATERIAL BALANCE STREAM DATA
Texaco Gasifier with HP Steam Raising Boiler

Coal is slurried and enters the Texaco gasifier along with oxygen from the
existing ASU. Dirty synthesis gas leaves the gasifier and passes through an HP
steam raising process boiler, followed by a quench section. The cooled
synthesis gases enter an Ash Removal Unit (proprietary) from which Ash is
removed. The next unit may be a chlorine guard depending on the operating
conditions required to meet impurity requirements for passing to the existing
Train 4 methanol loop. The gasifier pressure is limited by the maximum ASU
oxygen supply pressure stated above, however, it is desirable to provide Syngas
at 31.77 bg at the suction to the existing Syngas compressor.
After the gasifier quench system, the synthesis gas is further cooled then passes
through a bulk sulfur removal system, ZnO Sulfur Removal Guard Bed upstream
of the existing reformed gas cooler, to ensure a sulfur concentration of 10 ppb or
less.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL
Hardness Hardgrave HGI
37-45
IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS:
Superficial humidity (ambient T) (%)
Residual humidity (at 105C)
(%)
Total humidity (%)
6-12
15-18
20-25
Sup Heat Value (Kcal/Kg)

Ashes (%)
Volatile material (%)
Fixed Carbon (%)
5500
15-20
35
30
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Total Carbon (%)
Hydrogen
(%)
Oxygen
(%)
Nitrogen
(%)
Total Sulfur (%)
60
4.5
18
0.8
0.8
ASHES CHEMICAL ANALYSIS:

SiO2 (%)
Al2O3 (%)
CaO (%)
Fe2O3 (%)
MgO (%)
Na2O (%)
35
20
15
5
2.5
2.5
ASHES FUSION T:
Initial Deformation T (C)
Softening T
(C)
Hemispheric T
(C)
Fluidity T
(C)
1290
1340
1380
1445
Data is on dry basis, which is the comparison basis for carbons.

B.S = C.D (1/(100-H.R./100))
C.R = B.S ((100-H.T)/100)
C.D as determined
B.S dry basis
C.R as received
H.R residual
humidity
H.T total humidity
Material Balance Considerations:
Here, it is considered that conditions of inlet streams including temperature and

pressure are prefixed and the only aim is to study the performances of
equipments on the compositions and flowrates of other streams. So, those parts
of the process are calculated which influence appreciably the composition of
these streams.
The Schematic presentation of a simplified generic loop and boundaries, material
balances are written around them, are shown in the following Figure 2.
Figure 2
To start mathematical modeling of methanol synthesis loop, it is noted that all

streams at most contain H2, CO2, CO, CH3OH2, H2O, CH4, N2, Ar.
Material balance equations are typically performed on the three boundaries
corresponding to Fig. 2.
Number of equations for each boundary

GE Texaco Gasifier Feed To A Lurgi Metha PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GE Texaco Gasifier Feed To A Lurgi Metha PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GBH Enterprises, Ltd.

GE /Texaco Gasifier Feed to a Lurgi

Process Information Disclaimer

Methanol Synthesis Introduction:

Natural Gas Consumption Figures

Methanol Production Figures

85% Natural Gas Availability

100% Natural Gas Availability

Specific Consumption Figures

Train IV Synthesis Gas Composition

Material Balance Considerations

Methanol Synthesis Introduction:

Figure 1: Conventional Synthesis Loop:

Operation utilizing a coal gasifier is possible.

Production rate will be lowered from the present maximum achievable

Under circumstances where train IV is operated on the gasified coal feed

If between 91-92% of normal natural gas flowrate is available, then site

An operability review has been conducted to determine the effect of

2.1.1 Train I Design Basis

Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate

Steam Flow Rate to Reformer

2.1.2 Train II Design Basis

Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate 53.7

Steam Flow Rate to Reformer

Syn gas rate

2.1.3 Train III Design Basis

Hydrogen Recycle Flow Rate

Steam Flow Rate to Reformer

Syn gas rate

The following assumptions have been made as part of this study,

It is assumed that sufficient steam of the appropriate pressure and

The loop carbon efficiency of train IV has been assumed to be 95%. It is

It is assumed that under normal operating conditions (i.e.: 100% natural

The efficiencies for trains I through IV have been assumed to be 98.3,

It is recommended that provision is made to allow surplus CO2 to be exported to

Purge Gas Import

2.4.1 CO2 Removal

Base Case This case represents the operation of trains I through IV on

Case 1 Trains I through III operating on a natural gas feed assuming

Case 2 Trains I through III operating on a natural gas feed assuming

3.1.1 Base Case

3.1.2 Case 1 Coal Gasification in Service

3.1.3 Case 2 Coal Gasification in Service No CO2 Export

Methanol Production Figures

3.2.1 Base Case

It should be noted that at these lower distillation throughputs, distillation

It should be noted that at these lower distillation throughputs, distillation

85% Natural Gas Availability

100% Natural Gas Availability

On this graph, production as a percentage of present production (10,616 mtpd) is

3.5.2 Case 1 Coal Gasification in Service

Specific Consumption Figures

3.6.1 Base Case

3.6.3 Case 2 Coal Gasification and No CO2 Import

Train IV Synthesis Gas Composition

An evaluation of the effect of the addition of CO2 on the molecular weight

A confirmation of the design basis natural gas usage (whether as feed or

Confirmation of the performance of train IV with due regard to natural gas

Confirmation of the steam balance requirements for the coal gasification

Evaluation of the purge gas requirements for purification for trains I

Confirmation of distillation separation efficiencies, most especially for train

The key conclusions from this study are that,

Operation utilizing a coal gasifier is possible.