Application of Uncertainty Analysis in the Design of Subsea Natural Gas Dehydration Units
- Francois J. Kruger (Technical University of Denmark) | Georgios M. Kontogeorgis (Technical University of Denmark) | Nicolas von Solms (Technical University of Denmark)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, 12-15 November, Abu Dhabi, UAE
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- subsea production, uncertainty analysis, process design
- 9 in the last 30 days
- 39 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 8.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 25.00|
Advances in subsea processing present the opportunity for high pressure natural gas dehydration and product export directly from the seabed. In this work we evaluate dehydration using monoethylene glycol (MEG) as an absorbent. A combination of parameter uncertainty and process input sensitivity analysis is used to evaluate the feasibility of 18 different scenarios. For a representative light and heavy natural gas, a 3×3 experimental matrix for processing pressure (60, 90 and 120 bar) and lean MEG quality (90, 95 and 98 wt%) was used. 5000 Monte Carlo simulations were performed for each case with the output mean and confidence intervals being calculated.
In terms of dehydration performance, the feed gas composition has only a minor effect in the order of 2.5%. The process is shown to be infeasible when using lean MEG with a quality of 90 wt%, while the lean MEG flow rate can be adjusted to meet product specification of 32 ppm H2O if higher quality lean MEG is used. The required flow rates ranged between 16 and 254 m3/h. The minimum required lean MEG quality is estimated as 95, 93 and 92 wt% at 60, 90 and 120 bar processing pressure respectively. From the upper bound of the 99% confidence interval, it is estimated that the minimum safety factor of 5-9 ppm is required (depending on the quality of lean MEG used).
Secondary performance measures were also evaluated. MEG content in the product gas varied most strongly with gas composition (especially at high pressure), where differences of up 150% are seen for the light and heavy gas. Product recovery was between 97.5 and 99% for the feasible cases with the best recover found at high pressure and lean MEG quality, while recovery of light gas was slightly improved compared to heavy gas.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||15|
Bjørner, M.G., Sin, G and Kontogeorgis, G. M. 2016. Uncertainty analysis of the CPA and a quadrupolar CPA equation of state e with emphasis on CO2, Fluid Phase Equilib. 414: 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2015.12.037.
Efron, B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife, Ann. Stat. 7 (1): 1–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958830.
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company. 2014. Separating impurities from a gas stream using a vertically orientated co-current contacting system. Patent. WO/2014/182563. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014182563.
Folas, G. K., Berg, O.J., Solbraa, E., Fredheim, A.O., Kontogeorgis, G. M., Michelsen, M. L. and Stenby, E. H. 2007. High-Pressure Vapor–liquid Equilibria of Systems Containing Ethylene Glycol, Water and Methane: Experimental Measurements and Modeling. Fluid Phase Equilib., 251 (1): 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2006.11.001.
Fredheim, A. O., Johnsen, C. G., Johannessen, E., and Kojen, G. P. 2016. Gas-2-PipeTM, A Concept for Treating Gas to Rich Gas Quality in a Subsea or Unmanned Facility. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2-5 May 2016 OTC-27147-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/27147-MS.
Kontogeorgis, G. M., V. Yakoumis, I., Meijer, H., Hendriks, E. and Moorwood, T. 1999. Multicomponent Phase Equilibrium Calculations for Water–methanol–alkane Mixtures. Fluid Phase Equilib., 158–160: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(99)00060-6.
Kontogeorgis, G. M., Michelsen, M. L., Folas, G. K., Derawi, S.; von Solms, N. and Stenby, E. H. 2006. Ten Years with the CPA (Cubic-Plus-Association) Equation of State. Part 2. Cross-Associating and Multicomponent Systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45 (14): 4869–4878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie051306n.
Kruger, F. J., Danielsen, M. V., Kontogeorgis, G. M., Solbraa, E. and von Solms, N. 2018. Ternary Vapor–Liquid Equilibrium Measurements and Modeling of Ethylene Glycol (1) + Water (2) + Methane (3) Systems at 6 and 12.5 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 63 (5): 1789–1796. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jced.8b00115.
Kruger, F. J., Kontogeorgis, G. M., Solbraa, E. and von Solms, N. 2018b. Multi-component vapor-liquid equilibrium measurement and modeling of ethylene glycol, water and natural gas mixtures at 6 and 12.5 MPa. Accepted for publication in J. Chem. Eng. Data. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jced.8b00495
Kruger, F. J., Kontogeorgis, G. M and von Solms, N. 2018c. New association schemes for mono-ethylene glycol: Cubic-Plus-Association parameterization and uncertainty analysis. Fluid Phase Equilib. 458: 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2017.11.026
Mathias, P. M. 2014. Sensitivity of process design to phase equilibrium: a new perturbation method based upon the Margules equation, J. Chem. Eng. Data 59: 1006–1015. https://doi.org/10.1021/je400748p.
Metropolis, N. and Ulam, S. 1949. The Monte Carlo Method. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 44 (247): 335–341. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2280232
Palma, A.M., Oliveira, M.B., Queimada, A.Q. and Coutinho, J.A.P. 2017. Evaluating Cubic Plus Association Equation of State Predictive Capacities: A Study on the Transferability of the Hydroxyl Group Associative Parameters. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 56 (24): 7086–7099. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b00760.
Ramberg, R. M., Davies, S. R. H., Rognø, H., and Økland, O. 2013. Steps to the Subsea Factory. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janerio, 29-31 October 2013. OTC-24307-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/24307-MS.
Whiting, W. B., Tong, T. M. and Reed M. E. 1993. Effect of uncertainties in thermodynamic data and model parameters on calculated process performance, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32: 1367–1371. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00019a011.