Designing for sulphur removal and
storage: part 1
Selection of technologies for the sulphur block must serve legislative demands
and the efficient operation of upstream processes
Shamim Gandhi, Wayne Chung and Krish Nangia
Fluor Corporation
T
he sulphur block is an essen-
tial part of any new or revamp
refinery project and its cost
contributes significantly to the over-
all cost of a project. A typical
sulphur block includes facilities for
hydrogen sulphide removal, amine
regeneration, sour water treating,
sulphur recovery, tail gas treating,
sulphur degassing, sulphur granu-
lation and sulphur storage. The
major criteria in selecting the
sulphur block’s design include the
project’s environmental regulatory
constraints, process design require-
ments, operating philosophy, plant
reliability, and the associated capi-
tal and operating costs.
This two-part article discusses
some key issues in process design
configuration, which should be
addressed during the early phases
of any sulphur block project. These
include selection of unit capacity
and number of processing trains,
the sparing philosophy, amine
system design considerations, such
as solvent selection. It also
addresses issues such as licensor
selection for the sulphur recovery
and tail gas treating units. Design
considerations for revamping exist-
ing sulphur block units or installing
new facilities, and integration of a
new sulphur block with upstream
process units are also discussed in
this article.
Many projects aim to increase
bottom-of-the-barrel processing and
produce clean fuels mandated by
regulatory agencies. Most of these
projects are based on processing
heavy crude with greater amounts
of sulphur and nitrogen. Regardless
of the configuration of the upstream
process units, sulphur and nitrogen
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481
compounds are converted to hydro-
gen sulphide (H2S) and ammonia
(NH3) and must be removed from
the hydrocarbon product streams.
H2S and NH3 are processed in a
series of downstream sulphur block
units, including the hydrogen
sulphide removal unit (HSRU), the
amine regeneration unit (ARU), the
sour water treating unit (SWTU),
the sulphur recovery unit (SRU)
and the tail gas treating unit
(TGTU). To handle the additional
H2S and NH3 load from new and
Sulphur block units
allow upstream
process units to
generate revenue,
while keeping
the refinery in
compliance with HSE
requirements
modified upstream process units,
either the existing sulphur block
units are revamped or new units
are added.
The SRU and TGTU sections
contribute significantly to the capi-
tal cost of the sulphur block;
however, the HSRU, ARU and
SWTU also play an important role
in integrating sulphur block units
with upstream process units.
The following issues should be
considered during the early phases
of a sulphur block project; they are
based on recent experience with
new and revamp refinery projects:
• Project-specific environmental
requirements
• Sulphur block unit capacity and
train configuration selection
• Process licensor selection for
SRU/TGTU
• Design basis for SRU/TGTU
• Amine system design issues,
including solvent selection
• Sour water treating options
• Sulphur degassing and sulphur
storage design considerations.
Environmental requirements
Sulphur block units are primarily
environmental control process
units. They allow upstream process
units to generate revenue, while
keeping the refinery in compliance
with health, safety and environ-
mental (HSE) requirements. The
purpose of the sulphur block is to
meet or exceed these requirements
and to maintain a high degree of
reliability so as not to interrupt the
operations of the upstream process
units.
One of the first activities is to
identify clearly the environmental
regulatory requirements that are
specific to the project and could
affect the design of the sulphur
block.
Refinery fuel gas specification
Process units generate refinery fuel
gas, which is treated for H2S
removal prior to reuse as fuel in the
refinery’s fired heaters and boilers.
Typical specifications can vary
between 50 and 160 ppmv H2S. In
addition, for US refineries, the latest
regulations under consideration
by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) limit annual
PTQ Q2 2010 75
 allowable H2S emissions. Other
components such as carbonyl
sulphide (COS) and mercaptans
should also be addressed to meet
total sulphur limits in the fuel gas.
It is important to finalise the H2S
specification early in the design
cycle; it affects solvent selection for
the upstream process units and the
fuel gas contactors.
Tail gas emissions specification
The specification for sulphur diox-
ide (SO2) emissions leaving the
TGTU incinerator stack can vary
between 10 and 250 ppmv, depend-
ing on local environmental
regulations. The type of TGTU
selected is based on the required
level of sulphur recovery and the
specification for SO2 emissions from
the thermal oxidiser. The vent from
the sulphur degassing section is
normally routed to the thermal
oxidiser for incineration. The degas-
sing vent, however, can be recycled
to the SRU reaction furnace if the
requirement for thermal oxidiser
stack gas emissions is very tight;
say, less than 100 ppmv. The recy-
cle affects the design of the SRU,
especially its burner control
systems.
Sulphur recovery requirement
Depending on local regulations, the
Sulphur recovery
SRU/TGTU technology Sulphur recovery, %
Two-stage Claus 94–95
Three-stage Claus 96–98
Direct oxidation 98.5–99.0
Sub-dew point 98.5–99.5
Direct oxidation/reduction 99.5
Hydrogenation + amine treatment 99.8+
Table 1
sulphur recovery requirement can
vary from 98.5–99.9%. A three-stage
Claus process can achieve about
97%; however, recovery in excess of
99.5+% is typically required for new
projects, which require a TGTU.
Table 1 shows typical sulphur
recovery levels for various SRU/
TGTU technologies.
Regulatory requirements for
sparing SRU capacity
Some agencies require the refinery
to install spare SRU/TGTU capacity
as a condition for permitting. This
should be considered in establish-
ing the capacity and train
configuration. For example, some
states have a requirement for 75%
SRU/TGTU remaining capacity.
This requires the refinery to main-
tain at least 75% capacity of the
project requirement, even during a
shutdown of one SRU or TGTU.
This requires the refinery to install
additional capacity over actual
sulphur loads. It also essentially
eliminates the possibility of the two
SRUs with a common TGTU config-
uration, as a shutdown of one
TGTU will cause the shutdown of
both SRU trains.
Fugitive emissions from liquid
sulphur storage tanks
Sulphur product is stored in liquid
sulphur storage tanks or sulphur
pits. These are a source of fugitive
emissions of H2S and SO2. The tanks
are typically vented to atmosphere
or, in some cases, to the thermal
oxidiser. Alternative destinations
may be required, such as recycle of
the tank vent to the SRU reaction
furnace. The vent recycle has to be
accounted for in the design of the
SRU and TGTU.
H2S emissions from sour water
storage tanks
Sour water streams from the
upstream process units are normally
routed to the sour water degassing
drum, so that H2 and H2S gas can
be flashed off to a closed loop sour
gas system. Degassed sour water is
stored in the sour water tanks
before being stripped in the SWTU.
Sour water tanks are typically a
source of H2S emissions. A layer of

SRU capacity selection: an example

Operating scenario Normal operation Planned turnaround

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
One SRU train down for maintenance No No Yes Yes Yes for Option C No

Process unit Design feed rate, Maximum sulphur, Estimated sulphur load,
MBPSD load MT/D MT/D
Resid desulphurisation unit 1 50.0 350 350 350 350 350 350
Resid desulphurisation unit 2 50.0 349 349 349 0* 349 349
Resid desulphurisation unit 3 50.0 349 349 0* 349 0* 349
Hydrocracker 73.0 61 0* 61 61 61 61
Kerosene hydrotreater 39.0 16 16 16 16 16 16
Distillate hydrotreater 65.5 139 139 0* 139 139 139
Naphtha hydrotreater 21.0 3 3 3 3 3 0*
Imported fuel gas treater 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total sulphur, MT/D 1279 1218 791 930 930 1276

Sulphur plant configuration Capital cost, MM$ Operating load, % of design capacity
Option A - 2 @720 MT/D *** 176 88.8 84.6 109.9** 129.2** 64.5 88.6
Option B - 2 @750 MT/D *** 182 85.3 81.2 105.5** 124.0** 62.0 85.1
Option C - 3 @450 MT/D (Selected) 200 94.7 90.2 87.9** 103.3** 103.3** 94.5

* Zero sulphur load, as unit is down for planned turnaround. ** SRU operating rate with one train down for maintenance.
*** The 2@720 MT/D and 2@750 MT/D options will not meet the sulphur load during planned turnaround, whereas the selected 3@450 MT/D option will essentially
meet the requirements for all turnaround cases.

Table 2

76 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481

oil on the top of sour water will
absorb any H2S. Otherwise, the vent
from sour water tanks can be
collected, compressed and delivered
to the closed-loop sour gas system
in the refinery.
Capacity selection
An important activity associated
with sulphur block design is the
selection of unit capacity and
number of processing trains.
Historically, a process configuration
with two SRUs coupled to a
common TGTU was widely used to
minimise installed cost. With
greater emphasis on HSE, and the
refinery’s need to minimise
economic loss resulting from an
unplanned TGTU shutdown, it is
becoming popular to have a dedi-
cated TGTU with each SRU.
Capacity and number of
processing trains
If new sulphur block units are
required, the next step is the selec-
tion of unit capacity and number of
processing trains. Different capacity
options should be considered, such
as 1–100%, 2–50% and 3–35%. The
capacities of new units and the
number of processing trains are
fundamentally based on detailed
H2S, amine and sour water balances;
in addition, a detailed evaluation of
various operating scenarios is
required to ensure that the units are
adequately sized and spared, if
required.
Consideration should be given to
the refinery turnaround schedule,
including planned maintenance of
the SRU. Enough capacity should
be provided so that the SRU does
not become a bottleneck during a
planned shutdown.
Capital and operating costs
should be developed for the vari-
ous options to ensure a cost-effective
basis for selecting the train configu-
ration. For SWTU, HSRU and ARU
train selection, it is common to have
a different number of trains than
for the SRU/TGTU. See Table 2 for
an example calculation.
Sparing philosophy
The main objective of sparing is to
prevent a sulphur block unit from
curtailing upstream operations as
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481
well as meeting regulatory require-
ments. In order to deal with sparing
capacity, the refinery may consider
the following options:
• Oxygen enrichment mode of oper-
ation If the refinery is located in an
area where oxygen supply is avail-
able at a reasonable cost, the
refinery can consider designing
SRUs with oxygen enrichment tech-
nology. The additional capacity
associated with oxygen enrichment
is used only for peak shaving or for
spare capacity, such as when one
train is shut down for maintenance.
In oxygen enrichment mode of
operation, the capacity of the SRU
can be increased up to 25% with
almost no initial capital cost, or up
to 150% of its original design capac-
ity with minimum pre-investment
costs. Any capacity increase above
25% would require pre-investment
on the metallurgical selection of the
burner and additional design capac-
An important activity
associated with
sulphur block design
is the selection of
unit capacity and
number of processing
trains
ity of other components within the
sulphur recovery system
• Optimising sulphur recovery train
size If the oxygen supply is not
available or cost prohibitive, the
size of the sulphur recovery train
can be optimised to include some
spare capacity. Planned mainte-
nance of an SRU is typically
conducted during a shutdown of a
group of upstream process units.
Detailed sulphur balances are
required for each group to ensure
that the on-line SRU train has
enough capacity when the other
SRU train is down. If necessary, a
spare train could be considered.
Selection of process licensor
The SRU and TGTU are typically
licensed units, and therefore require
a process design package from an
experienced process licensor. The
HSRU, ARU and SWTU are typi-
cally open-art units, and the process
design for these units can be devel-
oped without the use of any
licensed technology.
Selection of a licensor involves
preparing an invitation-to-bid (ITB)
to various pre-qualified licensors.
On receipt of the proposal pack-
ages, a detailed evaluation is
conducted using industry-accepted
methods, such as a K-T analysis.
This method is based on a compara-
tive analysis of licensor experience,
technical designs, economic consid-
erations, and commercial terms and
conditions.
Some of the major criteria associ-
ated with the SRU/TGTU licensor
selection are:
• Licensor qualifications This cate-
gory includes the total number of
sulphur recovery and tail gas treat-
ing units awarded over the previous
5–10 years, along with the number
of repeat licences. The licensor’s
experience with the size of SRU
being considered should be closely
evaluated. It is also important that
the evaluation of a licensor’s quali-
fication be focused on the actual
experience and qualification of the
proposed team
• Technical considerations As part
of technical considerations, the
process configuration, operating
conditions and overall sulphur
recovery are compared for each
proposed technology. Items such as
process simplicity, catalyst require-
ments, operating flexibility, unit
turndown capability, utility and
off-sites impacts, reliability and
maintenance, safety impacts and
emissions are evaluated
• Economic considerations An
economic evaluation using the net
present value (NPV) method is
performed over a 25-year operating
period. There are minimal revenues
associated with the product streams
from the SRU/TGTU. The NPV
calculations are primarily based on
total capital cost and annual operat-
ing costs, such as utilities, licence
fees and catalyst costs. To perform
accurate NPV calculations, detailed
in-house capital cost estimates are
PTQ Q2 2010 77
 prepared for each technology on a
project-specific, normalised basis.
Estimated total installed cost
(TIC) from a licensor’s proposal
should never be used to facilitate
this economic evaluation, as
such estimated figures are often
low and exclude a lot of cost items,
such as foundation preparations,
contingencies, escalations and
owner’s cost.
• Commercial considerations Licensor
guarantees, licence fees, engineer-
ing fees and catalyst costs are
evaluated. Compliance with terms
and conditions, project execution
schedule and other requirements
are evaluated. Performance guaran-
tees on sulphur recovery efficiency,
SO2 emissions, sulphur product
purity and catalyst run length are
compared.
Amine system design
In the process of refining crude oil
to produce low-sulphur refined
products, sour gas is produced. The
H2S it contains is usually removed
in the gas contactors of the HSRU
using a circulating amine solution,
Rich Vent to vapour
amine recovery
Flash drum
Slop oil
FC
Rich amine
pump
TC
Lean amine
Amine
filtration
FC
Figure 1 Amine regeneration unit
78 PTQ Q2 2010
such as diethanol amine (DEA) or
methyl diethanol amine (MDEA).
Lean amine is also used in liquid-
liquid contactors to remove H2S
from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
products. The rich amine, loaded
with H2S, is then regenerated in an
ARU.
Figure 1 shows a simplified flow
diagram for a typical ARU. H2S is
stripped from the rich amine solu-
tion in a regenerator to produce a
lean amine. The lean amine is recir-
culated back to the contactors in the
HSRU or to other upstream process
units to complete the amine circuit.
Stripped acid gas is sent to a SRU
for further processing.
Solvent selection
Aqueous alkanol-amines are typi-
cally used to remove H2S, CO2 and
some COS from sour gas and sour
liquid streams by a reactive absorp-
tion process. The process involves a
chemical reaction between a weak
base (amine) and a weak acid
(gases), producing a water-soluble
salt that can be regenerated using
steam stripping to release the acid
gases from the rich amine solution.
Regenerator
CW
LC
FC
Lean amine LC
pump
There are several types of amine
contactor in the refinery. High-
pressure absorbers process
hydrogen recycle gas streams in the
reactor loops of hydroprocessing
units. The H2S specification is based
on requirements for the technology
used in the hydroprocessing unit.
These high-pressure units are typi-
cally the major source of H2S
pick-up.
Low-pressure absorbers treat
refinery sour gas. The sulphur spec-
ification for treated fuel gas is
typically 50–160 ppmv H2S, depend-
ing on the environmental regulatory
requirement. In addition, there are
liquid-liquid contactors in the refin-
ery to remove H2S from liquid
hydrocarbon streams, such as LPG.
The sulphur specification for treated
LPG is about 20 ppm wt H2S.
When appropriate amine contac-
tors are identified, an evaluation is
required to select the optimum type
of amine. For existing facilities, an
evaluation of the current system
may be required, with the objective
of maintaining a single solvent at
the refinery. For example, if the
Acid gas
to flare
Acid gas
to SRU
PC
Reflux
pump
FC
Sour water
FC
LP steam
LC
Cond.
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481

Amine concentrations and maximum loadings
Amine Solution concentration limit, % Gas loading limit
MEA 20 0.40
DEA 25–35 0.40–0.50
MDEA 40–45 0.40–0.45
Table 3
solvent used is MEA, the conver-
sion of the existing MEA solvent
system to MDEA could be consid-
ered. This would increase existing
capacity by about 15%, with a posi-
tive impact on utilities.
For new applications, the tertiary
amine MDEA is preferred over
monoethanol amine (MEA) and
DEA. MDEA selectively removes
dilute H2S from sour gas and liquid
streams. It is chemically less corro-
sive than MEA, thus allowing
circulation of solution strength to
50%, which equates to a lower
circulation rate and consequently
relatively smaller equipment. The
maximum acid gas loading for 45
wt% aqueous MDEA solution
ranges from 0.45–0.50 mole acid
gas/mole MDEA (see Table 3).
MDEA has a lower heat of reaction
with H2S, hence requires less energy
for regeneration. It does not react
with and is not degraded by COS
and CS2.
In general, MDEA has lower capi-
tal and operating costs when
compared to MEA and DEA. The
capital cost would be lower since
lower circulation is required. The
operating cost would be lower due
to less steam usage. This makes
MDEA the recommended solvent
for new applications. MEA,
however, may still be preferred for
low-pressure contactor applications
with stringent sour gas specifica-
tions. Similarly, DEA may be
preferred if a portion of CO2 must
be absorbed from the sour gas.
Centralised or standalone amine
system
A refinery can be designed with a
centralised amine system that
would supply amine to all or most
users. Some situations may require
a standalone ARU dedicated to a
single user. One such standalone
case is the amine system for the
80 PTQ Q2 2010
(mole acid gas/mole amine)
TGTU. A separate solvent system is
typically required for stringent H2S
removal levels for the absorber in
the TGTU, which operates at very
low pressures of approximately
0.5 psig. In some cases, the TGTU
licensor may also select a proprie-
tary type of amine solvent, with
special additives.
Another case where a dedicated
amine system may be required is
for hydroprocessing units that
cannot accept lean amine with any
residual CO2. They utilise a nickel-
based catalyst system, which can be
When appropriate
amine contactors
are identified, an
evaluation is
required to select
the optimum type
of amine
deactivated by CO2 present in the
lean amine solvent. Residual CO2
may be present in the lean amine if
the centralised system is treating
process gas from a coker or FCC
units, or treating imported gas
streams with high CO2 content.
Amine integrated model
Once all the amine users have been
identified, an integrated simulation
model should be developed. This
should include all amine contactors
and the ARU, modelled as one
system. The objective is to validate
contactor performance in meeting
H2S and CO2 specifications and to
develop a preliminary sizing basis
for the ARU and the associated
steam requirements.
Different simulation software
packages are commercially availa-
ble to prepare the integrated model.
Significant variations in residential
H2S prediction have been noted
between different simulation pack-
ages. Comparison to plant data is
recommended to validate the simu-
lation results.
Rich amine system
The ARU receives rich amine from
numerous upstream process units,
many of which are operating at high
pressure. As the ARU is designed for
low design pressures, our preferred
design practice is that the upstream
unit be provided with a rich amine
flash drum with a design pressure
equivalent to the amine flash drum
in the ARU, typically about 150 psig.
This approach avoids the potential
for one unit to cause an over
pressure condition in the ARU or
in any other refinery unit connected
to the rich amine header. This
greatly simplifies the relief system’s
design and eliminates any cases of
vapour breakthrough relief. Plant
safety is increased, as the need for
complicated procedures to lock
open block valves on the amine
distribution header is eliminated,
particularly during planned and
unplanned shutdowns.
A separate rich amine flash drum
is also preferred for liquid treating
units, such as LPG treating units.
Amine regenerator design
Figure 1 shows a typical open-art
design for the ARU. It consists of a
stripping column with approxi-
mately 20 valve trays, equipped
with an overhead condenser system.
Some systems utilise a pumparound
system with a liquid cooler instead
of the overhead condenser system.
The pressure drop is somewhat
lower, but it raises the height of the
column.
Careful consideration should be
given to the pressure profile across
the ARU and SRU/TGTU in the
early phase of the design, consider-
ing plot location and impact to
equipment sizing.
The critical parameter for the
ARU is the stripper bottoms pres-
sure. For a system using 45 wt%
MDEA solvent, the maximum pres-
sure is about 18 psig. Selecting a
www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481
 higher pressure would raise the
temperature in the column bottom
and lead to amine degradation.
Selecting a much lower pressure
would result in insufficient acid gas
pressure to the SRU. The SRU
needs about 12 psig acid gas pres-
sure at the inlet to the unit. This is
required to account for the pressure
drop across the SRU and TGTU
sections with reasonably sized
equipment.
Metallurgical considerations
Corrosion of carbon steel compo-
nents in amine services is not
caused by the amines themselves,
but by dissolved acid gases, such as
H2S and CO2, or by amine degrada-
tion products, such as heat-stable
salts. Variables affecting the corro-
sion rates are acid gas composition,
type of amine, solvent concentra-
tion, operating temperature,
solution purity, amine velocity and
type of metallurgy selected.
The type of amine primarily
affects allowable concentration and
loading. In general, MEA is more
corrosive than DEA, MDEA or
other amines, so lower concentra-
tions and loadings are required.
Typical limits for carbon steel corro-
sion concerns are shown in Table 3.
Two key preventive measures are
the use of upgraded alloys in criti-
cal areas and meeting the velocity
limits for rich amine piping. For
example, the lean amine piping
from the regenerator to the rich/
lean exchanger, and the lines to and
from the regenerator reboiler, are
specified as 316L to avoid corrosion
due to high temperature (260°F).
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC)
has occurred because of MEA, DEA,
MDEA, diisopropanol amine
(DIPA) and other amines. It is
significantly more prevalent in
MEA systems than in other amines.
There are no indications that inhibi-
tors, caustic soda, filters or
reclaimers contribute to or inhibit
cracking tendencies. Thermal stress
relief is considered the most effec-
tive means of preventing amine
SCC. In the past, some refiners and
gas plant operators stress relieved
only above certain operating
temperatures, but most of the
industry now stress relieves all
82 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481
amine services, except ambient
temperature storage tanks.
Sour water system design
Sour water containing appreciable
concentrations of H2S and NH3 is
produced in refinery process units.
The sour water is routed to a
SWTU. See Figure 2 for a simplified
process flow diagram of a typical
SWTU. It includes a sour water
stripping column, where water
from the upstream units is steam
stripped to suitable levels of H2S
and NH3 for further processing in
the downstream wastewater treat-
ing unit. The SWTU is also designed
to separate gas, light hydrocarbons
and oil emulsions from the sour
water.
A significant volume of stripped
sour water is reused in upstream
process units, as wash water in
hydroprocessing units or desalting
water from crude units. The remain-
ing stripped sour water is routed
for additional treatment to the
wastewater-treating unit to meet
environmental regulations as a
plant effluent. Acid gas rich in H2S
and NH3 from the SWTU is sent to
the SRU for further processing.
Phenolic SWT
In addition to H2S and NH3, sour
water may also contain phenols,
cyanides, chlorides and carbon
dioxide from upstream units where
oxidisation is involved. The level of
these contaminants in the sour
water streams depends on the refin-
ing processes and the origin of the
process feedstock. For example,
FCC and coker units produce sour
water with high levels of phenols.
The phenols are not removed in the
SWTU but stay in the stripped sour
water.
Since upstream hydroprocessing
units cannot use stripped sour
water with significant levels of
phenols, a standalone phenolic
SWTU is required for processing
sour water from the units that
produce phenols. Stripped sour
water from the phenolic SWTU is
not reused in the hydroprocessing
units; instead, it is routed to the
crude unit desalter for recycling the
benzenes and phenols. Any excess
stripped sour water is routed
directly to the wastewater-treating
unit.
Sour water storage tank
Sour water storage is required
upstream of the SWTU. For the
phenolic SWTU, a dedicated storage
tank is necessary so that sour water
can be processed separately. The
sour water storage tank provides the
hold-up time needed for weathering
the sour water and the surge time
required in the event of a SWTU
shutdown. In some cases, the sizing
basis for the storage tanks is dictated
by local agencies.
Sour water tanks are sources of
fugitive H2S emissions. Different
methods are available to contain
them. Some systems are based on a
floating-roof tank with a diesel oil
layer above the water phase to
absorb H2S. The spent oil is with-
drawn and replaced when it is
almost saturated with H2S. Other
systems are based on a cone roof
tank with a push-pull system, with
a vent to the flare system. To avoid
H2S release to flare, systems can be
specified to compress the vent to
the refinery sour gas system using
a liquid ring pump.
SWTU metallurgy
The sour water feed to the SWTU
contains NH3 in addition to H2S.
Ammonia is released from sour
water in the sour water stripper
and flows out with the overhead
acid gas, where bisulphide (NH4HS)
can be formed. As the overhead gas
stream cools down and condensa-
tion occurs, ammonium bisulphide
salt can precipitate and corrode
carbon steel materials.
Corrosion rates increase as a
function of aqueous NH4HS concen-
tration. NH4HS corrosion is also
sensitive to flow regime and wall
shear stress. Severe corrosion and
erosion can occur on carbon steel
tubes in heat exchangers if the fluid
velocity exceeds acceptable limits.
Another concern is ammonium
salt corrosion in the steam reboiler.
Some units have experienced
ammonium chloride corrosion due
to the amount of chlorides in the
sour water feed. This can cause
corrosion on carbon steel or SCC on
austenitic stainless steel.
 Sour Vent to vapour
water recovery
Sour water
surge drum
Slop oil
Sour water
pump
Stripped TC
sour water
CW
Vent to vapor
recovery
Figure 2 Sour water stripping
Each section of the SWTU needs
to be evaluated carefully for mate-
rial selection. The typical alloy
upgrades for a SWTU include 304L,
2205 duplex, Alloy 825 and tita-
nium. For example, on one unit,
304L was used for cladding the
overhead accumulator and the top
of the stripper column; titanium
was used for the overhead
condenser header and tubes; and
304L was used for the overhead
piping between the column,
condenser and accumulator.
Conclusion
The trend in refining is to increase
bottom-of-the-barrel processing and
produce clean fuels. The sulphur
block is an essential part of these
aims and contributes significantly
to project costs. Substantial
improvements in project execution
can be achieved by addressing key
design issues early.
84 PTQ Q2 2010 www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000481
Stripper
Stripped sour water
pump
FC
LC
Sour water
charge pump
Sulphur block units are primarily
for environmental control. They
enable upstream process units to
generate revenue, while keeping
the refinery in compliance with
HSE requirements, which should be
clearly identified during the early
phases of a project to design or
upgrade a sulphur block. Other key
activities include selection of unit
capacity, number of processing
trains, amine system design and
sour water treating options.
The second part of this article will
address design and selection issues
regarding the SRU, TGTU, and
product sulphur degassing and
storage.
Shamim A Gandhi is a Principle Process
Engineer with Fluor Corporation in Aliso Viejo,
California, with over 25 years of petroleum
refining and gas treating experience. He
Acid gas
to flare
Acid gas
to SRU
PC
LC
FC
Reflux
pump
FC
LP steam
LC
Cond.
has a MS in chemical engineering from the
University of California at Berkeley.
Email: Shamim.gandhi@fluor.com
Wayne C Chung is a Manager of Process
Engineering with Fluor Corporation in Aliso
Viejo, California, with over 30 years of gas
processing and refinery experience. He has
a MS in chemical engineering from Arizona
State University.
Email: Wayne.chung@fluor.com
Krish K Nangia is a Director of Process
Engineering with Fluor Corporation in Aliso
Viejo, California, with more than 35 years of
refinery and gas processing experience. He has
a PhD in chemical engineering from McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Email: Krish.nangia@fluor.com
Links
More articles from: Fluor
More articles from the following
category:
Design, Engineering & Construction
Desulphurisation & Sulphur Handling
Revamps, Shutdowns and Turnarounds