Questions Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper 4

Problem want to To do To do technical To optimize To retrofit amine

be solved experimental, and economical arrangements of absorption process
process simulation analysis of CO2 membranes by adding a
and economic removal from modules and membrane unit(s)
feasibility analysis natural gas by operational to sweeten a new
of hybrid FSC employing amine conditions via feedstock with
membrane for CO2 absorption and nonlinear increased CO2
removal from membrane programming mole fraction from
natural gas. technology formulations to 0.082 to 0.20
analysis optimize total
membrane area for
minimum footprint
of membrane skids
Difference of each Use small pilot- The study An amine
paper scale modules combines varying absorption
feed composition process, which
to membrane removes acid
arrangements components from
(1S, 2S and 3S). natural gas, is
Comparing the retrofitted by
process synthesis adding a
under two NLP membrane unit(s)
design to sweeten a new
optimization feedstock with
formulations increased CO2
mole fraction from
0.082 to 0.20.
Process variable Feed pressure, CO2
flow rate, and CO2 concentrations
concentration
Total economic
cost
Main result CO2 permeance When Type 1 SCPUF of
decreases with Constraint (CO2 OSMAHRD is
increase of feed < 3%mol in sales 0.421 $/yr, less
pressure due to natural gas) is than that of the
membrane imposed on latter (0.515
compaction and membrane $/yr),
less facilitated optimizations, suggesting that
transport CO2 content is OSMAHRD is a
contribution. unbounded in the better design
Carrier injection gas over
saturation and implying TSMAHRD.
lower water hydrocarbon The retrofit
vapor contents losses designs are
at high pressure Type 2 also compared
additionally Constraint (CO2 with building
lead to the > 75%mol in new amine
decreases of injection gas) absorption.
CO2/CH4 CO2 content is This
selectivity due unbounded in the investigation
to a more natural gas confirms that
significant product, SCPUF of the
reduction in CO2 demanding a chosen retrofit
permeance downstream designs is lower
compared to Chemical than that of the
CH4 permeance Absorption to new plants
Developed FSC specify sales gas
membranes For Process 1
could designs,
accomplish a increasing the
specific number of stages
separation increases CO2
requirement content in
with a CH4 injection gas (IG),
purity>96% at a decreasing
high stage-cut
when feed gas is hydrocarbon
10% CO2- losses.
90%CH4, but a For Process 2
second stage designs, all
membrane unit processes
is required to require a
achieve low Chemical
methane loss Absorption
(<2%). polishing step,
leading to hybrid
configuration
Membrane
Permeation-
Chemical
Absorption
Process 1 is
strongly
influenced by the
number of
permeation
stages. The 3S
permeation
configuration is
suggested as it
allows adapting
operational area
along project
lifetime.
Process 2 with
final polishing
Chemical
Absorption step,
where the
increase in the
number of
 permeation
stages generates
higher
permeation area,
higher cost
coefficient
(LCC), higher
hydrocarbon
losses and
footprint values,
indicating the 1S
permeation
arrangement as
the best in terms
of technical and
economic
performance.
What is CH4 loss
What is CO2 pipe Pipeline NG
specification specifications in
United States are:
CO2 < 2 mol% and
H2S < 4 ppm
Feed condition
Pressure of 10-40 bar 24 and 18 bar for 15 bar 5516 kPa
natural gas case 1 and 2a/b
available respectively.
Flow rate 3000 NmL/min 6 MMsm3/d 1743 kmol/h
Natural gas Synthetic mixed CO2: 10%/30%/50%
composition gases of 10 and 50 CH4:
mol % CO2 in 73.4%/53.4%/33.4%
balance CH4 N2: 0.24%
C2: 4.9%
C3: 3.44%
 i-C4: 1.25%
n-C4: 2.65%
i-C5: 0.94%
n-C5: 1.59%
C6+: 1.56%
Membrane process Type 1
specifically Constraint: upper
bound of CO2
content in the
treated natural
gas
Type 2
Constraint: lower
bound of CO2
content in the
injection gas

Pipeline specification: 2-5% CO2