A comparison of the UCB sulfur recovery process with conventional sulfur recovery technology for treating recycle gas from a crude oil residuum hydrotreater
Author(s) -
Lynn Scot,
Neumann Dan W.,
Sciamanna Steven F.,
Vorhis Frederick H.
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
environmental progress
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1547-5921
pISSN - 0278-4491
DOI - 10.1002/ep.670060413
Subject(s) - residuum , sulfur , sour gas , claus process , natural gas processing , capital cost , waste management , amine gas treating , process engineering , petroleum , flue gas desulfurization , natural gas , petroleum engineering , chemistry , environmental science , engineering , environmental engineering , hydrogen sulfide , electrical engineering , organic chemistry , soil science
In this paper the University of California, Berkeley, Sulfur Recovery Process (UCBSRP) is compared to conventional technology for the case of the removal of H 2 S from the recycle gas of a high‐pressure petroleum residuum hydrotreater. The conventional technology selected for this comparison consists of an absorber/stripper operation using diethanol amine as the absorbent, a Claus sulfur plant, and a SCOTT tail‐gas treating unit. Flowsheets, stream flows and conditions, and the total purchased cost of the major items of equipment are presented for both processes. From this comparison it is estimated that the direct fixed capital (DFC) for the UCBSRP would be about 61% of that for the conventional technology. The utility costs for this application of the UCBSRP are estimated to be less than the credit for the high‐pressure steam produced whereas the utility costs for the conventional process are substantially more.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom