New Gas Separation Process

1. New Gas Separation Process Presented by Andrea Tran & Conner Cruson

2. Outline Conventional processing Membrane technology Amine vs. Membrane Introduction of the new technology Advantages/Disadvantages of new process

3. Conventional processing

4. Overview of Gas plant processing • Field operations/Inlet receiving • Inlet compression • Gas treating • Dehydration • Hydrocarbon recovery • Outlet compression

5. Conventional Process

6. Demethanizer unit

7. De-ethanizer unit

8. Amine sweetening unit SWEETGAS ACID GAS SOUR GAS RECYCLE AMINE

9. Amine unit Advantages • High capacity processing unit • High reactivity of gas and amine  efficient removal of acid gases • High recovery of hydrocarbon gases Disadvantages • High energy consumption • Loss of solvent during processing

10. Other alternatives

11. Membrane technology • Driving force: • Partial pressure • Gas permeability (determined by membrane material) PERMEABILITY OF GASES

12. Membrane technology • To increase the recovery of methane, a multistage membrane unit is desired:

13. Limitation of Membrane

14. Membrane • Low capital investment • Ease of operation • No chemicals needed • Advantages • Disadvantages • Requirement of feed gas pretreatment • Gas compression • Generally higher loss of hydrocarbon gases • Low capacity

15. Our new technology

16. Objective Replace the amine treatment Reduce the overall cost of gas processing Reduce green house gas emissions

17. Process design • Technical information cannot be disclosed at this time due to IP protection issue. • Only results and economics will be compared.

18. Design 1_CO2 removal 58150 lb-mole/hr 97% C1 0.8% C2 0.1% C3 0.02% iC4 2% CO2 58067 lb-mole/hr 97.2% C1 0.8% C2 0.1% C3 0.01 % iC4 1.9% CO2 CLEAN GAS: FEED GAS: 63,030 lb-mole/hr 89.7% C1 0.7% C2 0.1% C3 0.02% iC4 9.4% CO2 63,030 lb-mole/hr 89.7% C1 0.7% C2 0.1% C3 0.02% iC4 9.4% CO2 Amine treatment unit New technology ACID GAS: 4880 lb-mole/hr 2.6% C1 0.04% C2 0% C3 0.06% iC4 97.2% CO2 4964 lb-mole/hr 2.4% C1 0.1% C2 0.5% C3 0.24% iC4 96.8% CO2 CLEAN GAS: FEED GAS: ACID GAS:

19. CO2 removal result Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology

20. Cost comparison Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology *Operating costs are per year **Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

21. 55263 lb-mole/hr 96.8% C1 0.9% C2 0.2% C3 0.0% H2S 2% CO2 63,030 lb-mole/hr 85% C1 0.8% C2 0.2% C3 5% H2S 9% CO2 Design 2 _CO2/H2S removal 7676 lb-mole/hr 0.11% C1 0.0% C2 0.0% C3 39.8% H2S 60% CO2 Amine treatment unit 54500 lb-mole/hr 97.7% C1 0.9% C2 0.2% C3 0.04 % H2S 1.1% CO2 CLEAN GAS: FEED GAS: 63,030 lb-mole/hr 85% C1 0.8% C2 0.2% C3 5% H2S 9% CO2 New technology ACID GAS: CLEAN GAS: FEED GAS: 8530 lb-mole/hr 3.9% C1 0.1% C2 0.1% C3 36.7% H2S 59.3% CO2 ACID GAS:

22. CO2/H2S removal result Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology

23. Cost comparison Williams Milagro plant capacity: 576 MMCF/ day Conventional method (Amine unit) New technology *Operating costs are per year **Annualized costs based on lifetime of 15 years

24. New Technology Advantages Disadvantages • Loss of some ethane, propane and iso-butane Low operation cost Energy efficient process Reduction of green house gas emissions Recyclable solvent No chemicals required

25. Conclusion • The new process design significantly reduces the energy consumption. • The new process conditioning efficiency is comparable to the amine process, some loss of propane and butane. • The new process is environmentally friendly.

26. Q & A