OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

PR O C E S S I N G
A new technology temperatures are based on the Joule-
based on the adiabatic Thomson effect and use of gas-expan-
cooling of swirling gas sion equipment. The gas processing
flow in a supersonic industry developed and has used them
nozzle is effective in sep- extensively.
arating and processing Gas Processing Recent research has produced new
natural gas components. technologies based on adiabatic cool-
A pilot test facility in Alberta, Can- ing, which results from gas expan-
ada, has shown that the 3-S separation sion in a supersonic nozzle. Cryogenic
device uses 10-20% less compressor temperatures result because part of gas
power than plants that use a Joule-
Thomson valve or turboexpander, based
on the same extraction level.
Potential applications for 3-S separa- Supersonic nozzle efficiently
tors in gas processing plants include:
• Gas preparation for transportation.
• LPG extraction, shallow cut, and
separates natural gas components
deep cut.
• Offshore gas separation and treat-enthalpy transforms to kinetic energy,
ment facilities. which can be reused to increase the
• CO2 extraction, ethane recovery, pressure in the system of supersonic Vadim Alfyorov
and LNG applications. and subsonic diffusers. Lev Bagirov
3-S separators provide a cost-effec- The nozzle’s working section lique- Leonard Dmitriev
tive and highly efficient extraction pro-
fies target components. It experiences Vladimir Feygin
Salavat Imayev
cess for C3+ gas components combined significantly lower pressures and tem- TransLang Technologies Ltd.
with a potential reduction in energy peratures than would occur at the facil- Moscow
consumption. ity exit without the addition of external
energy. John R. Lacey
TransLang Technologies Ltd.
Laval nozzle Fig. 1 compares the degree of natural Calgary
Existing approaches to obtaining low gas cooling at the same differential

N ATURAL GAS COOLING Fig. 1

70
T 1 = 290 K

60 P 1 = 40 atm

Laval nozzle device

Temperature difference, K

50

40

Turboexpander
30

20

Joule-Thomson valve
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Pressure ratio, P1/P2

Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005 53

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 53
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM
 OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

PR O C E S S I N G
3-S SEPARATOR Fig. 2

Supersonic nozzle Two-phase separator Directing vanes

Swirling device Working suction Supersonic, subsonic

difffusers

pressure for a Joule-Thomson valve, sion in the Laval nozzles and subse- (twisting) device can be at the outlet of
turboexpander, and the new device that quent pressure increase in the system the supersonic nozzle or the gas flow is
uses a Laval nozzle. of diffusers allow one to obtain a ∆Tst swirled in the plenum chamber ahead
For the Laval nozzle, we assume that that exceeds the temperature difference of the supersonic nozzle.
∆T = ∆Tst = T1 – Tst, where T1 is the in- ∆T in expanders at the same differential Twister BV, Rijswijk, Netherlands, has
put gas temperature and Tst is the static pressure. developed a product that uses the first
temperature of gas after its expansion. method.1 2 A wing or blade at the end of
The output pressure, P2, after flow- Supersonic separation the nozzle in the supersonic flow zone
ing through the system of diffusers is technologies immediately before the liquid extrac-
assumed to be two times smaller than The supersonic nozzle separates tion device provides swirling to the gas
a respective pressure P2 in supersonic drops of condensed liquid using cen- passing through the device. The Twister
wind tunnels at the same Mach number. trifugal forces, which are formed by separator dehydrates gas and separates
Fig.1 shows that natural gas expan- two different methods. The swirling heavy hydrocarbons.
This approach to create flow swirling
forms a shock wave that heats the gas,
creates pressure losses, and creates sub-
sonic flow zones in the separation area.
As the flow decelerates, the shock wave
produces partial crushing and evapora-
tion of the drops of liquid.
The second method, using a swirling
device in the plenum chamber ahead of
the nozzle, was independently proposed
by a group of Russian specialists and
developed with their participation by
TransLang Technologies Ltd., Calgary.
This method initiates gas swirling
in the plenum chamber so that the
tangential velocities, when combined
with the centrifugal forces, separate any
liquid drops formed in the supersonic
nozzle and deliver them to a special
extracting device.
This approach minimizes total
The pilot device, designed for long service, was constructed in Calgary (Fig. 3). pressure losses in the shock waves and

54 Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 54
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM
 OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

separates the flow deceleration zone 3-S EFFECTIVENESS Fig. 4

behind the shock wave from the drop 0.7
separation zone.
This method of flow swirling is 0.6
called 3-S technology (supersonic sepa-

3-S effectiveness, ∆α, mole %

ration) and the devices designed with 0.5
this technology are called 3-S separa-
0.4 Equal efficiency
tors.3 4
Fig. 2 shows a 3-S separator.
0.3
Its distinctive feature is the arrange-
ment of the swirling device in the ple- 0.2
num chamber. This is followed by the
supersonic nozzle, the working section, 0.1
the device for separating two-phase
flow with liquefied components, the 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
supersonic and subsonic diffusers, and Joule-Thomson effectiveness, ∆α, mole %
finally the directing vanes.
Different types of devices are used
to achieve flow swirling that gives a
centrifugal force with an acceleration 3-S SEPARATOR FLOW SCHEME Fig. 5
of about 106 m/sec2 in the supersonic
nozzle and the working section. The
devices include blades on the central
body and one or more gas jets along the
tangent to the surface of the nozzle en-
try section. These options allow optimal Evaporator 3-S separator
design for this section of the device.

3-S technology studies Feed

gas
3-S separators have been studied
and tested since 1996. Experimental
laboratories were constructed to fully
Secondary
analyze the process of drop formation separator
in supersonic flows. In addition to the
pattern of swirling supersonic flows, C 3+
researchers determined drop distribu-
tion functions along the nozzle radius
and length, and also developed optical
methods to measure drop sizes. E XTRACTION EFFICIENCY Fig. 6

Chromatographic procedures were 100

modified to apply to experimental con-

ditions. The calculation programs for 80
swirling natural gas flows in supersonic
nozzles were elaborated to give due
C3+ extraction, %

recognition to actual gas properties and 60

3-S separator
phase transitions. Turboexpander
The desire to optimize the design 40
for industrial 3-S separator applica-
tions led to construction in Russia of Joule-Thomson
an experimental test plant providing 20

natural gas flow rates of 1.2-2.5 kg/sec

at the plenum chamber entry with pres- 0
sures up to 75 atm. The temperature of –40 –30 –20 –10 0
gas varied from 20° to –60° C. with an Post-chiller gas temperature, °C.

Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005 55

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 55
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM
 OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

PR O C E S S I N G
J OULE-THOMSON FLOW SCHEME Fig. 7
From the data obtained from these
test facilities, mathematical programs
were developed to calculate the 3-S
separator physical components under
different operating conditions.
Fig. 4 shows the results of a series of
Joule-Thomson
valve test runs carried out in the pilot plant
Evaporator at a gas flow rate of 1.5-2.5 kg/sec.
The separation effectiveness for heavier
Separator components in the 3-S separator is plot-
Feed
gas ted on the vertical axis and the effec-
tiveness of the Joule-Thomson valve is
Exchanger on the horizontal axis.
Separator The separation effectiveness is
measured with ∆a = a0 − a, where
a0 and a are the initial and final mole
C3+
concentrations of components.
The tests used different feed compo-
nent concentrations, entry-gas pressures
T URBOEXPANDER FLOW SCHEME Fig. 8
and temperatures, differential pressures,
and gas dynamic flow conditions. The
results are for Mach numbers less than
1.5 in the 3-S separator working sec-
tion.
The separation efficiency in the 3-S
Turboexpander
separator slightly decreases with an
Evaporator
increase of heavy components. This is
due to the characteristics of thermody-
Separator namic expansion of mixtures with high
Feed
gas concentrations of heavy components;
Exchanger Liquid for these types of mixtures, the appear-
condensate
ance of liquid in the separator premix
Compressor Separator chamber is normal.
For certain conditions, especially
C 3+
with small concentrations of heavier
hydrocarbons, the 3-S separator can
separate liquid components that a Joule-
Thomson valve could not.
exhaust pressure of 15-60 atm. The next stage included the design
The test plant can measure gas flow and manufacture of a pilot plant with a Comparison with existing
rates at different points in the 3-S greater natural gas flow rate, up to 12 technologies
device, pressures along the entire gas kg/sec, at an inlet pressure of 50-70 At the same differential pressure, the
flow path channel, and gas tempera- atm. This plant, designed for extended 3-S separator can achieve considerably
tures in different parts of the test device. periods of service was built in Calgary lower temperatures in the liquid separa-
Furthermore, it allows chromatographic (Fig. 3). tion section due to adiabatic cooling
analyses of gas composition. The test A range of experimental investi- during expansion in the supersonic
plant is equipped with special devices gations was conducted up to those nozzle and the Joule-Thomson effect.
to supply a specified gas composition. approaching industrial applications. We compared the effectiveness of the
Target component removal deter- Experimental results confirmed the pre- 3-S separator, Joule-Thomson valve, and
mines the 3-S separator’s effectiveness. liminary results and conclusions from turboexpander in extracting C3+ from
Currently more than 400 test runs in the laboratory test device. natural gas.
this test plant have investigated the op- The first industrial 3-S device has Fig. 5 shows a diagram of a facil-
eration of various design versions of the recently started operating at a gas-treat- ity with 3-S separator and the chiller
3-S separator and its components. ment plant in Western Siberia. to extract C3+ from natural gas. In this

56 Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 56
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM
 OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

O FFSHORE 3-S APPLICATION Fig. 9

Condensate extraction

3-S separator
Gas
pipeline

Exchanger
Condensate
Gas-liquid
preparation for Condensate
Wellhead separator
pipelining pipeline

Sea bottom Well

facility, natural gas is supplied to the 3-S the same for all schemes. crease the required compressor power
separator after cooling in the recupera- The 3-S separator results in a higher by 10-20%.
tive heat exchanger and evaporator. extraction of C3+ vs. the Joule-Thom- At gas processing plants equipped
Gas from the 3-S separator flows to son valve and turboexpander. The 3-S with turboexpanders and coolers, using
the recuperative heat exchanger, which separator is simpler to design, operate, 3-S extractors could lead to a 15-20%
cools the feed gas. Two-phase flow from and maintain. reduction in the required compressor
the 3-S separator flows to the second- power at the same extraction level.
ary separator, the gas phase of which Advantages in field plants
mixes with purified flow from the 3-S Gas processing plants with the 3-S Offshore example
separator. separator have: Because the 3-S technology has a
Fig. 6 shows the extraction of C3+ • Fewer compressor station power small footprint, has no moving parts,
from natural gas and its dependence on requirements. needs no maintenance personnel, and
the stream temperature after the evapo- • Lower pressure loss. uses the gas formation’s energy, the
rator. The feed gas temperature was 20° • Greater recovery given the same capital and operating costs are lower vs.
C. and the feed gas composition was operating parameters. conventional gas processing plants.
methane, 90 mole %; ethane, 2 mole • A simpler plant design. These factors make the 3-S technol-
%; propane, 4 mole %; and butanes, 4 • Fewer moving parts. ogy especially promising for offshore
mole %. • Ease of construction and reduction fields. Most gas production platforms
The gas pressure at the entry and exit in plant weight. limit the gas pressure to 100 atm for
was 60 atm and 45 atm, respectively. • Lower equipment, operating, and safety reasons. Wellhead gas pressures
Projected flow separation in the 3-S maintenance costs. often exceed 100 atm, which results in
separator was based on the experimen- Calculations based on experimen- the need for a Joule-Thomson valve to
tal data obtained during the tests of tal data for particular fields show that reduce the gas pressure.
pilot industrial 3-S separators. using the 3-S technology results in a Replacing the Joule-Thomson valve
Fig. 6 also shows C3+ extraction for a 30% increase in the recovery of heavier with a 3-S separator solves several prob-
Joule-Thomson valve or turboexpander. gas components for the same power lems: pressure reduction, gas dehydra-
Figs. 7 and 8 show flow schemes for requirements. For the same extraction tion, LPG extraction, and dewpoint
a Joule-Thomson valve and turboex- level, the power requirement could be control.
pander, respectively. reduced 50-70%. Fig. 9 shows a possible scheme using
Fig. 6 assumes that the isentro- Using 3-S separators instead of a 3-S separator for LPG extraction in an
pic turbine efficiency is 80% and the Joule-Thomson valves in existing gas offshore gas field.
isentropic turboexpander compressor processing and extraction plants in- Gas from the well, after passing the
efficiency is 75%. Pressure losses, tem- creases LPG extraction 10-20% with the wellhead, flows to the processing facil-
perature approaches, and pressure losses same compressor power. For the same ity with the 3-S separator mounted near
in the recuperative heat exchanger are extraction level, it is possible to de- the wellhead. The facility consists of a

Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005 57

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 57
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM
 OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F

Glossary of the
Petroleum Industry: recuperative heat exchanger, a 3-S sepa- holds a degree (1963) in physics from the Mos-
cow Institute of Physics and Technology.
English-Spanish & rator, and a secondary separator.
The liquid mixture of hydrocarbons Vladimir Feygin (engo@[Link]) is a director of
Spanish-English, and water separated from the natural TransLang Technologies Ltd., Moscow. He has also
Fourth Edition gas flow to a special facility to prepare served as an executive director of ENGO Research
condensate for transportation. The ef- Center since 1990. In 1970-2004, Feygin was a
researcher at Gazprom’s institute, Niigazekonomi-
fectiveness of the separation process ka. He holds a degree (1967) and a PhD (1971)
is comparable with schemes that use a in mathematics from Moscow State University.
turboexpander. ✦
Salavat Imaev (imaevsalavat@[Link]) is
References deputy director of the fundamental aspects of oil
and gas science and technology department at the
1. Cottrll, A. “Technique puts gas Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He
treatment in a spin,” Upstream, Mar. 19, holds a degree (1993) and a PhD (1998) in
2004, p. 48. physics and mathematics from the Moscow Insti-
2. Okimoto, F., and Brouwer, J., tute of Physics and Technology.
“Supersonic gas condition,” World Oil, John R. Lacey (drjohnl@[Link]) is presi-
August 2002. dent of of John R. Lacey International Ltd. and
3. Alferov, V.I., et al., “Method and chairman of TransLang Technologies Ltd., Calgary.
Edited by Maria-Dolores apparatus for liquefying a gas,” Euro- He has advised on major oil and gas developments
Proubasta pean Patent, EP1131588. and transmission projects around the world. Before
Approx. 400 Pages/May 2005 4. Alferov, V.I., et al., “Method of and forming his own company in 1970, Lacey worked
for BP Canada for 15 years. He holds a BSc
ISBN 1-59370-041-5 apparatus for the separation of compo- (1953) in petroleum technology from the Royal
$59.00 US nents of gas mixtures and liquefaction School of Mines, London, and a PhD (1955) in
of a gas,” US Patent 6372019. geology from the University of London. Lacey was
Encompassing more than 20,000 elected to the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
terms, the fourth edition of this best- in 1996 and is Honourary Consul-General for the
seller is updated by 20% and draws Kingdom of Thailand.
heavily from the editorial contents of
Oil & Gas Journal Latinoamérica, as a
source of new technical terminology
and of the local usage in different The authors
Spanish-speaking countries. Vadim Alfyorov (wtdiv@[Link]) is a director of
Included are many new technical and TransLang Technologies Ltd., Moscow. He is also
general words, phrases, and abbrevi- division head of the Central Aerohydrodynamic
ations used in oil and gas exploration, Institute, where he has worked since 1958. Since
drilling, logging, completion, reser-
1987, Alfyorov has served as a professor at the
department of Flying Machines of the Moscow
voir engineering, and production. Institute of Physics and Technology. He holds a
There is a considerable increase in degree (1957) and a PhD in physics from the
geologic, geophysical, commercial, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He is
computer, and legal terminology. a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics
Ancillary fields such as electricity, and Astronautics and is an Honoured Scientist of
navigation, construction, and ecology the Russian Federation.
are also expanded.
Lev Bagirov (engo@[Link]) is a director of
TransLang Technologies Ltd., Moscow. He has
Order Toll-Free: also been a director of new technologies for the
1-800-752-9764 ENGO Research Center since 1998. Before that,
Intl: +1-918-831-9421 Bagirov served as a senior scientist in the Institute
for Problems in Mechanics, Russian Academy of
Go to Sciences. He holds a degree (1966) and a PhD
[Link] in mathematics (1970) from Moscow State
for more information on this University.
title and more! Leonard Dmitriev is a chief engineer for TransLang
Technologies Ltd. and senior research scientist at
the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, Moscow,
specializing in applied aspects of gas dynamics. He
has worked at the institute since 1964. Dmitriev

58 Oil & Gas Journal / May 23, 2005

OIL&GAS A

JOURNAL
[Link] 58
Previous Page Contents Zoom In Zoom Out Front Cover Search Issue Next Page
BEMaGS
F
5/17/05 [Link] AM