2019

FACILI TIE S
Tips of the Month
Table of Contents

4
Optimizing Performance of a
Refrigeration System with an
External Sub-Cool Economizer

10
Impact of Heavy End on the
Performance of a Mechanical
Refrigeration Plant with MEG
Injection

26
Design and Operation of
Unconventional Surface Facilities:
Process Safety Tips
Table of Contents

39
Impact of Liquid Carryover on
the Performance of a Mechanical
Refrigeration Plant with MEG
Injection

50
A Short Cut Method for
Evaluating Molecular Sieve
Performance

60
Impact of Temperature Approach
of the Heat Exchangers on the
CAPEX and OPEX of a
Mechanical Refrigeration
Plant with MEG Injection
4
 OPTIMIZING PERFORMANCE OF A
R E F R I G E R AT I O N S YS T E M W I T H A N
EXTERNAL SUB-COOL ECONOMIZER

Published January 2019

Written by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Continuing the January 2008 [1], May
2008 [2], May 2014 [3], and December
2017 [4] Tips of The Month (TOTM),
this tip demonstrates the application
of an external sub-cooler to optimize
the performance of a mechanical
refrigeration system. Specifically, by
utilizing a cold process stream we will
minimize the compressor power and
condenser duty. The details of three
typical refrigeration systems are given
in Chapter 15 of Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 2 [5]. They are
referred to as follows:
1. A simple refrigeration system (Fig
15.1).
2. A refrigeration system employing one
flash tank economizer and two stages of
compression (Fig 15.7). Also, view the
May 2014 [3] and December 2017 [4]
TOTM.
Also, view the May 2008 [2] and May
2014 [3] TOTM.
Figure 1 presents the process flow
diagrams for a simple system and the
system with a sub-cool heat exchange
economizer.
As part of a hydrocarbon dew point
control plant, this tip will evaluate
and compare these two refrigeration
systems.
Let’s consider cooling the process gas
to -20°C [-4°F] by removing 2733 kW
(9.325 MMBtu/hr) in a propane chiller
and rejecting it to the environment by a
propane condenser at 37.8°C [100°F].
Pure propane is used as the working
fluid in the simulation. In this tip, all
simulations were performed with UniSim
Design software [6] using the Peng-
Robinson equation of state.

3. A Simple Refrigeration System with a

sub-cool heat exchange economizer (Fig
15.9).

Fig 1. Process flow diagrams for a simple refrigeration system and with a sub-cool
economizer
5
Assuming an approach temperature
of5°C [9°F] and a 6.9 kPa (1 psi)
pressure drop in the propane chiller,
the pressure of saturated propane
vapor leaving the chiller is 203.3 kPa
(29.5 psia), and at a temperature of
-25°C [-13°F]. Assuming no frictional
losses in the suction line to the propane
compressor, the resulting suction
pressure is 203.3 kPa (29.5 psia).
The condensing propane pressure at
the specified condenser temperature of
37.8 °C (100 °F) is 1303 kPa (189 psi).
The condenser frictional losses, plus the
frictional losses in the piping from the
compressor discharge to the condenser
was assumed to be 34.5 kPa (5 psi);
therefore, the compressor discharge
pressure is 1338 kPa (194 psia). The
propane compressor adiabatic efficiency
was assumed to be 75%.
External Sub-Cool, Economizer:
The process streams 9A and 9B are part
of a hydrocarbon dew point control plant
and are shown on the top of Figure 2.
This stream is the extracted NGL stream
from the refrigeration plant, combined
with the plant inlet condensate. The
stream properties are shown in Table 1.
To prepare the liquids to be fed to the
deethanizer, the process specification
is to raise the temperature of the NGL
product stream 9A from -3.9°C (25°F) to
20°C (68°F) in HEX E-102. The resulting
duty is 713.6 kW (2.435 MMBtu/hr). This
heat will be supplied from a propane
refrigerant sub-cool economizer heat
exchanger. The process duty and
the temperature of the NGL product
stream are set by the stabilization
process requirements, thus the sub-cool
economizer duty is fixed.
The sub-cool economizer cools the
condensed propane (refrigerant stream
R4) from 37.8°C (100 °F) at 1303 kPa
(189 psia) to a cooler temperature at
1269 kPa (184 psia), depending upon
the specified propane refrigerant flow
rate (stream R5). The pressure drops in
HEX E-102 and HEX E-104 are 35 kPa
(5 psi) respectively. The heat removed
by the sub-cool economizer is fixed by
the process duty required to heat the
NGL process stream 9A.
Determination of Refrigerant
Circulation Rate of Sub-Cool
Economizer System:
The refrigerant circulation rate has a
considerable impact on the compressor
power and consequently on the
condenser duty. Figure 2 presents the
variation of compressor power as a
function of the refrigerant circulation
rate. This figure indicates that the power
is minimum at 995.5 kW (1335 hp) for
a circulation rate of 690 kmol/h (1521.5
lbmol/hr), with fixed propane chiller and
sub-cool exchanger duties.
Summary:
For the same chiller duty, chiller and
condenser temperatures, adiabatic
compression efficiency, and pressure
drops, the results of the sub-cool
exchange economizer system are
compared with the results of a simple
refrigeration system in Table 2. This
table indicates that by utilizing an
external sub-cool exchange economizer
for this case study with optimized
propane circulation rate, the compressor
power and condenser duty are reduced
by 25 % and 25.4%, respectively.
6
Fig 2. Cold process stream 9A part of the hydrocarbon dew point control plant is utilized
to sub-cool refrigerant stream R5.

Table 1. Process conditions for streams 9A and 9B

7
Fig 3. Impact of refrigerant circulation rate on the compressor power

Table 2. Comparison of the key parameters of two refrigeration systems

8
To learn more about similar cases
and how to minimize operational
problems, we suggest attending our
G4 (Gas Conditioning and Process-
ing), G5 (Practical Computer Simu-
lation Applications in Gas Process-
ing) and G6 (Gas Treating and
Sulfur Recovery) courses.

References:
1. Moshfeghian, M., http://www.
jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-
month/2008/01/refrigeration-with-flash-
economizer-vs-simple-refrigeration-
system/, John M. Campbell Tip of the
Month, January 2008.
2. Moshfeghian, M., http://www.
jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-
month/2008/05/flash-tank-vs-hex-
economizer-refrigeration-system/, John
M. Campbell Tip of the Month, May 2008.
3. Moshfeghian, M., http://www.
jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-
month/2014/05/refrigeration-with-heat-
exchanger-economizer-vs-simple-
refrigeration-system/, PetroSkills Tip of
the Month, May 2014.
4. Moshfeghian, M., http://www.
jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-
month/2017/12/optimizing-performance-
of-refrigeration-system-with-flash-tank-
economizer/, PetroSkills Tip of the Month,
December 2017.
5. Campbell, J.M., “Gas Conditioning
and Processing, Volume 2: The
Equipment Modules,” 9th Edition, 3rd
Printing, Editors Hubbard, R. and Snow–
McGregor, K., Campbell Petroleum
Series, Norman, Oklahoma, PetroSkills
2018.
6. UniSim Design R443, Build 19153,
Honeywell International Inc., 2017.
9
 I M PAC T O F H E AV Y E N D O N T H E
PERFORMANCE OF A MECHANICAL
R E F R I G E R AT I O N P L A N T W I T H M E G
INJECTION

Published February 2019

Written by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

10
Fig 1. Process flow diagrams for a mechanical refrigeration plant using a sub-cool
economizer and MEG Injection system
Continuing the January 2019 [1]
Tip of The Month (TOTM), this
tip investigates the impact the
heavy end characterizations on
the performance of a mechanical
refrigeration plant with mono-
ethylene glycol (EG or MEG)
injection for hydrocarbon dew point
(HCDP) control. Specifically, the
impact of heavy end characterization
on the gas-gas heat exchanger
and chiller duties, the mechanical
refrigeration system, and the liquid
propane recovery will be investigated
and reported. The details of a
mechanical refrigeration plant with
MEG injection and regeneration
system are given in Chapters 6 and
15 of the Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volumes 1 and 2 [2, 3],
respectively.
Figure 1 presents the process flow
diagrams for a typical mechanical
refrigeration plant with MEG injection
system. In this tip, all simulations
were performed with UniSim Design
R443 software [4] using the Peng-
Robinson equation of state.
Case Study:
Let’s consider a rich gas with
the compositions and conditions
presented in Table 1. Based on
the reported molecular weight and
relative density for the C7+ fraction,
Table 2 presents the estimated
normal boiling point (NBP), critical
properties and acentric factor which
are needed by the equation of state.
11
The objective is to meet a
hydrocarbon dew point specification of
-20 °C [-4°F] at about 4000 kPa (580
psia) for the sales gas by removing
heat in the “Gas/Gas” heat exchanger
(HX) with a hot end approach
temperature of 5°C [9°F] and in a
propane chiller and rejecting it to the
environment by a propane condenser
(“E-103”) at 37.8°C [100°F]. Pure
propane is used as the working fluid
in the simulation. The pressure drops
in the “Gas/Gas” HX and the propane
chiller are assumed to be 34.5 kPa (5
psi).
The feed gas is flashed in the “Inlet
Separator” at 30 °C (86 °F) and
4000 kPa (580 psia) to remove any
condensate. The “Inlet Separator”
vapor (stream “2”) is saturated with
water by the “Saturate -100” to form
stream “2 Wet” upstream of mixing
with MEG hydrate inhibitor, stream
“EG1” and the recycle stream “18A”
from the deethanizer overhead vapor
(located at the right hand side of Fig.
1). The estimated hydrate formation
temperature of streams “2 Wet” is 14.7
°C (58.4 °F). The hydrate inhibitor is
injected at the inlet of “Gas/Gas” HX
by stream “EG1” and at the inlet of
the “Chiller” by stream “EG2”. Stream
“5” cools to about -8 °C (17.6 °F) and
stream “7” cools down to the specified
temperature of -20 °C (-4 °F) which
are below the hydrate formation
temperature (HFT) of 14.7 °C (58.4
°F). The injection rates of streams
“EG1” and “EG2” for 80 weight % lean
MEG and water solution are estimated
by the Adjust tool of UniSim. A design
margin of 1.1 °C (2 °F) HFT below the
cold temperature for streams “5” and
“7” were assumed.
Table 3 presents the estimated
hydrate inhibition injection rates.
Assuming an approach temperature
of 5°C (9°F) and a 6.9 kPa (1 psi)
pressure drop in the propane chiller
(“RefChiller”) shell side, the pressure
of saturated propane vapor leaving
the chiller is 203.3 kPa (29.5 psia),
and at a temperature of -25°C
(-13°F). Assuming no frictional losses
in the suction line to the propane
compressor “K-101”, the resulting
suction pressure is 203.3 kPa (29.5
psia).
The condensing propane pressure at
the specified condenser temperature
of 37.8 °C (100 °F) is 1303 kPa (189
psi). The condenser “E-103” frictional
losses, plus the frictional losses in the
piping from the compressor discharge
to the condenser was assumed to
be 34.5 kPa (5 psi); therefore, the
compressor discharge pressure is
1338 kPa (194 psia). The propane
compressor adiabatic efficiency was
assumed to be 75%.
12
 Table 1. Rich feed gas compositions
and conditions

Table 2. Estimated C7+ properties [4]

Table 3. Estimated 80 weight % lean MEG hydrate inhibition injection rates

13
External Sub-Cool Economizer:
The cold Stream 7 is flashed in the
3-phase separator “V-102” at -20 °C
(-°4F) and 3931 kPa (570 psia). The
vapor stream “4” from this cold separator
is used to cool down the incoming
warm feed gas in the “Gas/Gas” HX.
The heavy liquid stream “8B” (rich
MEG solution) from the cold separator
is regenerated in the regeneration unit
(not shown in Fig. 1) and the lean 80
weight % MEG is recycled and used in
streams “EG1” and “EG2”. The cold NGL
stream “8” (light liquid phase) from the
cold separator, “V-102”, is combined with
the plant “Inlet Separator” condensate
(stream “3”) in the mixer “Mix-101” to
form stream “9” at about 5 °C (41 °F)
and 3945 kPa (572.2 psia). To prepare
the liquid to be fed to the deethanizer,
the process specification is to raise the
temperature of the NGL product stream
“9A” from about -4°C (25°F) and 1535
kPa (222.6 psia) to 20 °C (68 °F) and
1500 kPa (217.6 psia) in “E-102” HX.
The required heat duty will be supplied
from a propane refrigerant sub-cool
economizer “E-104” HX. The process
duty and the temperature of the NGL
product stream is set by the deethanizer
process requirements, thus the sub-cool
economizer duty is fixed.
The sub-cool economizer cools the
condensed propane (refrigerant stream
“R4”) from 37.8°C (100 °F) at 1303 kPa
(189 psia) to a cooler temperature at
1269 kPa (184 psia), depending upon
the specified propane refrigerant flow
rate (stream “R5”). The pressure drops
in “E-102” and “E-104” HXs are 35 kPa
(5 psi); respectively. The heat removed
by the sub-cool economizer is fixed by
the process duty required to heat the
NGL process stream “9A”.
Deethanizer Specifications and
Performance:
The deethanizer column specifications
are:
►To recover 90 mole percent of propane
of the feed in the bottom product and
►Ethane to propane mole ratio equal to
5 % in the bottoms product
►Top and bottom pressures are 1450
and 1500 kPa (210.3 and 217.6 psia);
respectively
►Number of theoretical stages 12 plus
the condenser and reboiler (determined
by the material balance and column
shortcut calculations)
The deethanizer simulation results are
summarized in Table 4.
Impact of Heavy End
Characterization:
Figure 2 presents the phase envelopes
for the key streams of feed (“Dry Feed”),
inlet separator vapor (stream “2”)
and sales gas (stream “4”). All phase
envelopes are generated on the dry
basis. As expected the bubble point
curves are very close to each other but
large deviations are observed for the
dewpoint curves. Similar diagrams for
the nC7 and nC8 as the heavy end are
presented in the Appendix in Figures 1A
and 2A; respectively.
14
 Table 4. Summary of
deethanizer key design
parameters for C7+

Fig 2. Phase diagrams for the key streams for the case of C7+ as the heavy end 15
 Figures 3, 4, and 5 present the
impact of heavy ends on the phase
envelope of the key streams of
feed, inlet separator vapor (stream
“2”) and the sales gas (stream “4”),
respectively. These figures indicate
that as the heavy components are
removed in the “Inlet Separator” and
cold separator (“V-102”) from the
process streams, the impact of heavy
end characterization on the phase
envelope reduces and vanishes
almost completely for sales gas
(stream “4”) in Figure 5.

Fig 3. The impact of heavy end on the phase envelope of the feed stream

16
Fig 4. The impact of heavy end on the phase envelope of the inlet separator vapor stream

Fig 5. The impact of heavy end on the phase envelope of the sales gas (Stream 4)

17
Table 5. Impact of heavy end on the Gas/Gas HX and Chiller duties
Table 5 presents the impact of heavy
end characterization on the “Gas/Gas”
HX and “Chiller” duties. Note that
the “Gas/Gas” HX duty is controlled
by stream “4” composition and rate.
Based on the phase envelopes in
Figure 5, the sales gas composition
is almost independent of heavy ends
because they are removed from the
sales gas but the heavy ends have
more impact on the composition of
streams “2”.
Table 5 indicates that as the heavy
ends become heavier,
►stream “2” flow rate decreases
because there is more liquid leaving
the “Inlet Separator”.
►stream “4” rate increases by about
0.27% (nC7 to C7+) because most of
the C7+ has been removed.
►“Gas/Gas” HX duty is set by stream
“4” rate and fixed ΔT=25-(-20) =45 °C
(81 °F) because Q = mΔ(HSalesgas –
H4).
►“Gas/Gas” HX duty increases
slightly, less than 0.8 %, because
stream “4” rate increases by about
0.27%
►stream “2A” rate decreases, “Gas/
Gas” HX duty increases, stream “5A”
gets colder, chiller ΔT decreases;
therefore, “Chiller” duty decreases.
Assume the design-heavy end was
nC8 and feed gas heavy end is C7+,
not the design nC8. More liquids
would leave the “Gas/Gas” HX so
the chiller duty would decrease by
about 38%. But the additional duty to
18
condense the liquids in the “Gas/Gas” This indicates that a change in feed
HX has to come from somewhere. gas characterization would have an
If the “Gas/Gas” HX has excess effect on the ability of a refrigeration
area to accommodate the additional unit to make spec. For easier
duty requirements, then there would reference of the stream, see Figure 6.
indeed be a decrease in chiller duty.
If it does not, the duty of the chiller
may actually increase.
If the feed gas got lighter, and the
heavy end is nC7, not the design
nC8, then more gas would go to the
chiller (less liquids leaving the “Gas/
Gas” HX) and the chiller duty would
increase by about 20%. Here, the
chiller would have to have excess
capacity.

Fig 6. Simplified schematic of the front end segment of the process flow diagram

19
Table 6. Impact of heavy end on the refrigeration systems key parameters
Table 6 presents the impact of
heavy end characterization on the
refrigeration systems. This table
indicates that the rate, compressor
power, condenser and the sub-cool
economizer duties decrease as
the heavy end becomes heavier.
Table 6 also indicates that the rate,
compressor power and condenser
duty for the sub-cool economizer
refrigeration system are lower
compared to the simple refrigeration
system. Because the chiller duty
decreases, the refrigeration systems
become smaller; therefore, the OPEX
and CPEX decrease.
The heat removed by the sub-cool
economizer “E-104” is used to heat
stream “9A” in “E-102” HX. Location of
“E-102” HX and streams “9A” and “9B”
are shown in Figure 7.
Table 7 presents the impact of heavy
ends on the rates and the molecular
weights for stream “3” from the “Inlet
Separator” and stream “8” from the
cold separator (“V-102”) and the
combined NGL stream “9”. This
table indicates that as the heavy
end becomes heavier, rate of stream
“3” increases but the rate of stream
“8” decreases. Because the rate of
heavy ends entering the “Gas-Gas”
HX and “Chiller” decrease, the chiller
duty decreases and condensation of
components decrease resulting lower
streams “8” and “9” rates. Table 1A in
the Appendix present components flow
rates for streams “3” and “8”.
20
 Fig 7. Simplified schematic of the back end of the process flow diagram

Table 7. Impact of the heavy end on streams “3” and “8” and the combined NGL stream
“9” rates and molecular weight

21
 Using “VLV-100” stream 9 pressure is reduced from 3945
kPa (572.2 psia) to 1535 kPa (222.6 psia) in stream “9A”.
Table 8 presents the combined NGL streams “9A” and “9B”
(see Figure 7) properties. This table indicates that as heavy
end becomes heavier, the “E-102” HX duty decreases
because combined NGL stream rate decreases. The
required heat for this HX is supplied by the sub-cool HX
(“E-104”) of the refrigeration system.

Table 8. Impact of the heavy end on the combined NGL streams “9A” and “9B” properties

22
 Table 9 presents the impact of heavy
end on the plant overall material
balance. This table indicates that as
the heavy end becomes heavier,
►the sales gas rate increases
(stream 4)
►the deethanizer feed (combined
NGL stream, 9 ) rate decreases
because the sales gas rate (stream 6)
has increased
Table 9. Impact of the heavy end on liquid propane recovery
►the overhead vapor temperature
from the deethanizer top remains
almost constant because the
overhead composition does not
significantly change
►the overhead vapor rate from the
deethanizer top decreases because
the deethanizer feed rate decreased.
23
 The overhead vapor of deethanizer
is compressed from 1450 kPa (210.3
psia) to the feed gas inlet pressure of
4000 kPa (580 psia) by the recycle
compressor (“K-100”) and cooled
down to the inlet feed gas temperature
of 30 °C (86 °F) in the “E-101” HX.
The liquid from compressor suction
scrubber is recycled and combined
with deethanizer feed by the recycle
pump. Table 10 presents the
compressor and pump power and
the “E-101” HX duty requirements.
Table 10 indicates that as the heavy
end becomes heavier, the recycle
compressor and pump power and the
cooler duty decrease because the
recycle stream rates decrease.

Table 10. Impact of the heavy end on the recycle compressor, pump, and cooler

Summary:
The feed analysis and /or heavy end
characterization in natural gas play
an important role in the equipment
sizing and process design. Feed
analysis may change when different
wells of slightly different composition
are brought to the production facility.
This tip demonstrated the impact of
heavy end characterization in the feed
gas on the process streams rates,
phase behavior, the equipment sizes
and the refrigeration requirement by
replacing, the C7+ with n-heptane
(nC7) and n-octane (nC8). All
other specifications and operating
conditions were kept the same.
As demonstrated in this tip, it would
be a good practice to size the
equipment with a design margin of
1.2 to 1.3 to take into account the
changes in feed gas heavy end
composition and characterizations.
To learn more about similar cases
and how to minimize operational
problems, we suggest attending
our G4 (Gas Conditioning and
Processing), G5 (Practical Computer
Simulation Applications in Gas
Processing) and G6 (Gas Treating
and Sulfur Recovery) courses.

24
References
1. Moshfeghian, M., http://
www.jmcampbell.com/
tip-of-the-month/2019/01/
optimizing-performance-of-
refrigeration-system-with-an-
external-sub-cool-economizer/,
PetroSkills -John M. Campbell Tip
of the Month, January 2019.
2. Campbell, J.M., “Gas
Conditioning and Processing,
Volume 1: The Fundamentals,”
9th Edition, 3rd Printing, Editors
Hubbard, R. and Snow–McGregor,
K., Campbell Petroleum
3. Campbell, J.M., “Gas
Conditioning and Processing,
Volume 2: The Equipment
Modules,” 9th Edition, 3rd Printing,
Editors Hubbard, R. and Snow–
McGregor, K., Campbell Petroleum
Series, Norman, Oklahoma,
PetroSkills 2018.
4. UniSim Design R443, Build
19153, Honeywell International
Inc., 2017.

25
D E S I G N A N D O P E R AT I O N O F
U N C O N V E N T I O N A L S U R FAC E
FAC I L I T I E S: P RO C E S S
SAFETY TIPS

Continuing the August 2018 Tip of the Month

(TOTM) [1] on design and operation of
unconventional surface facilities, this TOTM
presents process safety tips for four case studies:

1. Direct Fired Heater Treater Burn Through

Failures
2. Tank Blanket Gas / Flame Arrestors
3. Pocketing Vent / Relief Piping
4. Hot Oiling of Oil Storage Tanks to meet TVP /
RVP

We start this tip with a quote from a colleague,

James A. Britch: “I never regretted buying quality”.
There is a lesson in there for unconventional
batteries. There is tremendous pressure to reduce
capital costs, but you should be focused on life-
cycle cost. If you install equipment and then burn
down the battery…you haven’t saved much.
There’s the loss of capital and revenue from shut-in
production.

Published March 2019

Written by: James F. Langer, P.E.
This Tip of the Month is also available as
an on-demand webinar.

27
Process Safety Case Study 1: Direct
Fired Heater Treater Burn Through
Failures
Direct fired burners are failing due to
internal flame impingement directly
on the steel, and salt build up on the
outside of the firetube in the process
fluids. The salts build up, act as an
insulator, and then steel temperature
increases until a burn through occurs.
Since the process side of the burner
operates at a higher pressure than the
natural draft burner, the process fluids
enter the burner and ignite. In many
instances, this has resulted in massive
damage to the entire battery.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of burn
through failure that occurs in the 12
o’clock portion of the burner firetube
(combustion leg).
Solutions to this issue are to use:
(1) Indirect fired heater where the
process fluid flows through coils in
a larger shell surrounded by a heat
transfer fluid. The firetube burner is
immersed in the heat transfer fluid
within the same shell.
a. This solves the salt build
up failure mode, but not the flame
impingement failure.
b. Some operators use glycol as
a heat transfer fluid. This is a cheaper
alternative to expensive heat transfer
fluids, but glycols degrade to acetic
acid if the skin temperatures of the fire
tubes exceed 350 °F (177 °C). These
same operators rarely check the pH
of their heat transfer fluid until leaks
and severe corrosion are found. Heat
transfer oils are a better choice.
(2) Direct fired heater with a ceramic
sleeve to take the higher temperature
shock of direct flame impingement.
Heaters normally have ceramic
refractory castables and bricks to
prevent direct flame impingement. As
shown in Figures 2 and 3 Bartz et al.
[2] recommends inserting a ceramic
tube to spread the heat flux of the
flame and avoid burn through.
28
Fig 1. Heater Treater Firetube Failure

Fig 2. ALZETA distributed flux burner [2]

29
 (3) Best Solution: consider a separate
furnace and heat exchanger using
heat transfer oils. This solves
both issues. The heat transfer oils
are designed to operate without
degradation at process temperatures
required, and the metal temperatures
in the heat exchanger will not cause
metal failure if there are no salt
deposits on the heat exchanger. This
may require periodic hydro-blasting,
but you will not have to rebuild the
battery.

Fig 3. ALZETA general arrangement of distributed flux burner and blower [2]

30
 (4) Think Reliability has a free
excellent Root Cause Analysis Excel
tool (Figure 4).

Fig 4. CAUSE MAP for Burner Firetube Failures in Heater Treaters

31
Process Safety Case Study 2: Tank
Blanket Gas / Flame Arrestors [3]
Flame arrestors and tank blanket
gas provide independent layers of
protection between the ignition source
- flare or thermal oxidizer - and the
vapor space in the water and oil
tanks. When evaluating what to use
in a design consider using a layer of
protection analysis or LOPA [3]. This
tool is discussed in the PetroSkills-
John M Campbell PS4-Process Safety
Course. It provides a semi-quantitative
solution to design decisions that are
based of failure frequencies and
not just personal preferences or gut
feels. The more independent layers of
protection the lower the frequency of
the consequence occurring.
f = (IEF) x PFD1 x PFD2….
Where:
f = Frequency of the consequence
occurring for the scenario
IEF = Frequency of the initiating event
PFD = Probability of the failure on
demand for an independent layer of
protection.
For example, the probability that
a relief valve will not operate as
intended.
Flame arrestors have a Probability
of Failure on Demand (PFD) with a
range of 1x10-1 for arrestors without
temperature indicators and an
effective isolation / shutdown system,
and tank blanket gas (BPCS-Basic
Process Control System) has a PFD
of 1x10-1 [3]. The designer can use
both or either to provide independent
layers of safety protection. Flame
arrestors are subject to plugging from
ice, corrosion, fouling, improper or lack
of maintenance. Blanket gas works
well in this situation due to the narrow
range of flammability of methane in
the air (5-15% fuel to air). The majority
of stock tank incidents occur during
maintenance activities with small
amounts of gas and large volumes of
air.
During the high volume of production
timeframe for unconventional tank
batteries the stock tanks degas and
have “auto-blanketing” of the active
tank vapor space. But what happens
in the future when rates are very low?
What happens in water tanks that are
not provided with gas blanketing? This
also explains why water production
tanks / injection batteries experience
tank fires/explosions. In general,
methane has a very low solubility in
water - approximately 2 SCF/STB
(0.36 Sm3/STm3) of water going from
250 psi (1724 kPa) to atmospheric
pressure. This small volume often
results in flammable mixtures in the
vapor space of the tank.
It is a good practice to select tank
blanketing as your first line of defense
to prevent internal tank corrosion and
gas plant amines and TEG process
corrosion/solution degradation by
keeping oxygen out of the system, and
internal explosions from flash back
from flares and thermal oxidizers.
32
Process Safety Case Study 3:
Pocketing Vent / Relief Piping
Many unconventional tank batteries
run their vent / flare / thermal oxidizer
piping at grade on sleepers with
zero slope, then jump vertically into
a flare knockout (see Figure 5). This
pocketed piping is a liquid trap for
water and heavier hydrocarbons.
Once a liquid pocket forms, the tanks
overpressure, and then vent locally
through their pressure/vacuum reliefs
and thief hatches. In the winter this
pocket can freeze and block the flare
(see Figure 6). This can also cause
a loss of containment when a PSV
Fig 5. Pocketed piping causes an
activates and cannot depressure
overpressure in the tanks and results in
to the flare. This causes a loss of
venting
revenue, as well as an environmental
and safety issue. These vapors are
extremely rich and normally are
much heavier than air. This creates
the potential for an unconfined vapor
cloud explosion or flash fire locally.

Fig 6. This flare knock out has a 5 ft (1.5 m) pocket - tanks vent, and the
potential for ice blockage in the winter 33
Fig 7. Flare header design into knockout – sloped / no pockets
As illustrated in Figure 7, slope your
vent/relief piping toward a lower
elevation knock out or burn pit.
API Standard 521 [4], pressure-
relieving and depressuring systems,
requires that the flare piping be free
draining to the flare knock out drum,
and then free draining from the flare
back to the flare knock out.
These issues causing tanks to vent
heavier than air molecules (propane/
butane) can lead to flash fires and
unconfined vapor cloud explosions
(UCVE). Heavy vapor generally finds
an ignition source. Figure 8 shows
how oxygen may get into the oil
stock tanks. Getting oxygen into your
system causes major damage to the
gas plant amine systems, and TEG
systems, as well as general corrosion
in your facilities.
34
Fig 8. How oxygen gets into your oil stock tanks & also causes venting

35
 Process Safety Case Study 4: Hot
Oiling Oil Storage Tanks
►Does the lease operator visit the site
As illustrated in Figure 9, some with the contractor to issue a Hot Work
operators use hot oil trucks during Permit and JSA?
winter months to heat the crude oil
in the tanks to flash light ends off
the crude to meet vapor pressure ►Do you have operating guidelines or
specifications for crude sales. The checklists for Hot Oil Operations?
solution to this issue is not to use hot
oil trucks but is to stabilize the crude
or use a design using Vapor Recovery ►Do they include monitoring of
Towers (VRT) as discussed in the weather conditions? Wind Speed?
August 2018 Tip of the Month- Design
and Operation of Unconventional - Shutdown for low or no wind
Surface Facilities Issues-Stabilization conditions?
[1].

Fig 9. Winter “Hot Oiling” of oil stock tanks

Many operators are faced with large
numbers of tank batteries in the
hundreds or thousands spread over a
large geographic area. Many rely on
unsupervised contractors to conduct
hot oiling operations, oil & water
loading and unloading, and other
maintenance operations.
►Do you have an operator present at
the location to help with hot oiling?
►Do they include stopping of other
operations such as oil / water truck
loading?
►Are parts of the lease blocked off
to prevent other vehicles entering as
ignition sources?
►Are the hot oil trucks placed upwind
of the tanks?
36
►Are the hot oil trucks 100 ft
or 50 ft from the tanks? What’s
your company’s design spacing
requirements for ignition sources /
direct fired equipment and oil storage
tanks?
►Have you conducted a HAZOP
for Hot Oiling Operations? Many
accidents happen during non- routine
operations.
►Do you have gas detectors?
Normally the contractor has a
portable. Is that effective? You have
RVP issues because it’s winter and
cold. Where will the contractor be…in
the truck where it’s warm.
The hot oil truck is a direct fired
(propane) heater with propane
storage, and diesel or oil storage. It
is normally used to pump hot oil at
high pressure down the well’s tubing
to melt wax deposits. This operation
is normally done for 24 hrs/day during
winter months to stabilize the crude.
It is extremely dangerous, and many
flash fires have occurred in the past
few years.
February 2, 2018 Explosion-Flaming
Truck ignites Tank Battery-worker
airlifted with serious burns
These are just some recent
examples, but unfortunately, there are
many, many more…
Read: August 24, 2018 Fire Crews
Battle Tank Battery Fire
Read: January 25, 2019 Officials
identify victims of fire on FM 1788
South
Read: January 2, 2019 Noble Energy
oil tanks in West Texas catch fire
Watch Video: Heater Treater Fire
Many Tank Battery Fires are occurring
in areas with new unconventional
plays like the Bakken and West Texas.
Summary and Conclusions
In this tip of the month, we have
identified process safety risks with
some designs, solutions to the issues,
and evidence that the problem exists.
So my question for you….after
reading this tip, what action do you
take to improve the safety of your
designs and operations at your
company? Your company and
colleagues need you to take action.
►Are your designs safe?
►Are your operations safe?
Stay Safe! Let us know if you have
any questions.
To learn more about similar cases and
how to minimize operational problems,
we suggest attending our G4 (Gas
Conditioning and Processing), PF3
(Concept Selection and Specification
of Production Facilities in Field
Development Projects), PF4 (Oil
Production and Processing Facilities),
PF49 (Troubleshooting Oil & Gas
Processing Facilities), and PS4
(Process Safety Engineering)
courses.
37
References
1. Langer, J.F., https://www.
petroskills.com/blog/entry/00_
totm/aug18-fac-design-and-
operation-of-unconventional-
surface-facilities,
PetroSkills-John M. Campbell
Tip of the Month, August 2018.

2. “SPE 166261 Distributed-

Flux Burners Improve Life
of Firetubes and Process
Throughput in Heater Treaters”,
David Bartz, Michael Silberstein,
James Gotterba; ALZETA
Corporation, 2013

3. “Layer of Protection Analysis-

Simplified Process Risk
Analysis”, Center for Chemical
Process Safety-CCPS, 2001,
AIChE, Table 5.2 In-line
deflagration arrestor

4. API Standard 521, Pressure-

relieving and Depressuring
Systems. 6th Edition, Jan 2014

38
I M PAC T O F L I Q U I D C A R RYOV E R O N
THE PERFORMANCE OF A
M E C H A N I C A L R E F R I G E R AT I O N
PLANT WITH MEG INJECTION

Published April 2019

Written by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

39
Problems in meeting sales-gas dew
point specifications are not unusual
in plants. A facility engineer often
suspects separator carryover when
troubleshooting such a plant. Proper
sizing of equipment for gas-liquid
separation is essential to almost all
processes. Many facility operating
problems are related to improperly
designed or under-sized gas-liquid
separators. The following list presents
items that can contribute to too much
liquid (carryover) in the gas stream.
►The mist extractor operating Ks
value is greater than the design value.
►The velocity profile through the mist
extractor is poor, resulting in localized
high velocities/flooding.
►The droplet sizes reaching the mist
extractor are too small.
►The entrained liquid load reaching
the mist extractor is too high.
►The mist extractor is damaged or
plugged.
►Level control and instrumentation
malfunction or failure
►Foaming
Continuing the December 2005,
January and February 2019 [1, 2, 3]
Tips of The Month (TOTM), this tip
investigates the impact of the liquid
carryover (LCO) on the performance
of a mechanical refrigeration plant
with mono-ethylene glycol (EG or
MEG) injection for hydrocarbon dew
point (HCDP) control. Specifically,
the impact of LCO on the gas-gas
heat exchanger and chiller duties, the
mechanical refrigeration system, and
the liquid propane recovery will be
investigated and reported.
The details of a mechanical
refrigeration plant with MEG injection
and regeneration system are given
in Chapters 6, 15 and 18 of the Gas
Conditioning and Processing, Volumes
1 and 2 [4, 5], respectively. In addition,
how to minimize the liquid carry in
separation equipment are discussed in
PetroSkills-John M. Campbell course
titled, “PF42 - Separation Equipment -
Sizing and Selection”.
Figure 1 presents the process flow
diagrams for a typical HCDP control
plant using mechanical refrigeration
with MEG injection system. This
figure is similar to the February 2019
TOTM [3] with the exception that the
refrigeration system utilizes a flash
tank economizer with two stages of
compression. In this tip, all simulations
were performed with UniSim Design
R443 software [6] using the Peng-
Robinson equation of state.
Case Study:
Let’s consider the same case
presented in February 2019 TOTM [3]
for a rich gas with the compositions
and conditions presented in Table 1
[3].
40
Fig 1. Process flow diagrams for a HCDP plant using mechanical refrigeration with a flash
tank economizer and MEG Injection system

Based on the reported molecular Table 1. Rich feed gas compositions and conditions
weight and relative density for the
C7+ fraction, Table 2 presents the
estimated normal boiling point (NBP),
critical properties and acentric factor
which are needed by the equation
of state. The objective is to meet a
hydrocarbon dew point specification of
-20 °C (-4 °F) at about 4000 kPa (580
psia) for the sales gas by removing
heat in the “Gas/Gas” heat exchanger
(HX) with a hot end approach
temperature of 5°C (9°F) and in a
propane chiller, 5 °C (-4 °F) approach
temperature, and rejecting it to the
environment by a propane condenser
(AC-100) at 37.8°C (100°F). Pure
propane is used as the working fluid
in the simulation. The pressure drops
in the “Gas/Gas” HX and the propane
chiller are assumed to be 34.5 kPa (5
psi).

Table 2. Estimated C7+ properties [4]

41
The feed gas is flashed in the “Inlet
Separator” at 30 °C (86 °F) and
4000 kPa (580 psia) to remove any
condensate. The “Inlet Separator”
vapor (stream 2) is saturated with
water by the “Saturate -100” to form
stream “2 Wet” upstream of mixing
with MEG hydrate inhibitor, stream
“EG1” and the recycle stream “18A”
from the deethanizer overhead vapor
(located at the right-hand side of Fig.
1).
The estimated hydrate formation
temperature of streams “2 Wet” is 14.7
°C (58.4 °F). The hydrate inhibitor is
injected at the inlet of “Gas/Gas” HX
by stream “EG1” and at the inlet of
the “Chiller” by stream “EG2”. Stream
“5” cools to about -8 °C (17.6 °F) and
stream “7” cools down to the specified
temperature of -20 °C (-4 °F) which
are below the hydrate formation
temperature (HFT) of 14.7 °C (58.4
°F). The injection rates of streams
“EG1” and “EG2” for 80 weight % lean
MEG and water solution are estimated
by the Adjust tool of UniSim. A design
margin of 1 °C (1.8 °F) HFT below the
cold temperature for streams “5” and
“7” were assumed.
Assuming an approach temperature
of 5°C (9°F) and a 6.9 kPa (1 psi)
pressure drop in the propane chiller
(“Chiller”) shell side, the pressure of
saturated propane vapor leaving the
chiller is 203.3 kPa (29.5 psia), and
at a temperature of -25°C (-13°F).
Assuming no frictional losses in
the suction line to the propane
compressors “K-101” and “K-102”, the
resulting suction pressure is 203.3 kPa
(29.5 psia).
The condensing propane pressure at
the specified condenser temperature
of 37.8 °C (100 °F) is 1303 kPa (189
psi). The condenser “AC-100” frictional
losses, plus the frictional losses in the
piping from the compressor discharge
to the condenser were assumed to
be 34.5 kPa (5 psi); therefore, the
discharge pressure of compressor
“K-102” is 1338 kPa (194 psia). The
compressors inter stage pressure
was determined by equalizing the
power for “K-101” and “K-102”. The
compressors adiabatic efficiency was
assumed to be 75%.
The cold Stream 7 is flashed in the
3-phase separator “V-102” at -20
°C (-°4F) and 3931 kPa (570 psia).
The vapor stream “4” from this cold
separator is used to cool down the
incoming warm feed gas in the “Gas/
Gas” HX. The heavy liquid stream
“8B” (rich MEG solution) from the
cold separator is regenerated in the
regeneration unit (not shown in Fig.
1) and the lean 80 weight % MEG is
recycled and used in streams “EG1”
and “EG2”. The cold NGL stream
“8” (light liquid phase) from the cold
separator, “V-102”, is combined with
the plant “Inlet Separator” condensate
(stream “3”) in the mixer “Mix-101” to
form stream “9” at about 5 °C (41 °F)
and 3945 kPa (572.2 psia). To prepare
the liquid to be fed to the deethanizer,
the process specification is to raise
the temperature of the NGL product
stream “9A” from about -4°C (25°F)
and 1535 kPa (222.6 psia) to 20 °C
(68 °F) and 1500 kPa (217.6 psia) in
“E-102” HX. The process duty and
the temperature of the NGL product
stream is set by the deethanizer
process requirements. The pressure
drops in “E-102” HX is 35 kPa (5 psi).
42
Deethanizer Specifications and
Performance:
Like the February 2019 TOTM [3], the
deethanizer column specifications are:
A. To recover 90 mole percent
of propane of the feed in the bottom
product and
B. Ethane to propane mole ratio
equal to 5 % in the bottoms product
C. Top and bottom pressures are
1450 and 1500 kPa (210.3 and 217.6
psia); respectively
D. Number of theoretical stages
12 plus the condenser and reboiler
(determined by the material balance
and column shortcut calculations)
The deethanizer simulation results are
summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.
Summary of deethanizer
key design parameters

43
 Impact of Liquid Hydrocarbon
Carryover:
Separator “V-102” is a three-phase
separator. Under ideal condition the
vapor (stream 4) leaving the separator
has no LCO and its dewpoint
temperature is the same as the feed
(stream 7) temperature. Typical range
of liquid carry over is 0.013–0.27 m3
liquid/106 std m3 of gas (0.1–2 gallon
of liquid/MMscf) [5]. In practice due
to the reasons listed in the preceding
section the LCO can be even higher.
In this tip, the impact of LCO was
investigated for a range of 0 to 3
mole % of liquid in light liquid phase
(liquid hydrocarbon phase) entrained
into the gas phase. The entrained
liquid consists of heavier molecules
causing the dewpoint temperature of
Fig 2. Impact liquid carryover on the sales gas hydrocarbon dewpoint temperature
stream 4 and sales gas to go up and
make it off spec. To offset the effect
of LCO and bring back the sales gas
dewpoint temperature to spec, the
operators typically lower the chilling
temperature of feed (stream 7) to
separator (“V-102”). This is possible if
the mechanical refrigeration system is
capable of handling a higher chilling
load.
Figure 2 presents the hydrocarbon
dewpoint curves as a function of the
liquid hydrocarbon carryover (CO). the
cricondentherm points shift to the right
as LCO increases. The bubble point
curves are not presented because
the LCO has negligible effect on the
bubble curves. All phase envelopes
are generated on the dry basis
44
 Figure 3 presents the impact of
LCO on the sales gas dewpoint
temperature and the required cold
separator feed (chilling) temperature
to offset the LCO. As the LCO
increases the chiller temperature
should be decreased to meet the
sales gas dewpoint spec of -20 °C
(-4 °F). For 3 mole % LCO, the sales
gas dewpoint temperature is -14.4 °C
(6.1 °F). To bring back the sales gas
dewpoint temperature, the process
gas (stream 7) should be cooled to
-28.6 °C (-19.5 °F).

Fig 3. Impact of liquid carryover on the sales gas dewpoint temperature (solid line) and the
required cold separator feed temperature (dashed line) to offset liquid carryover

45
 As the chiller temperature decreases,
to counter the effect of the LCO,
the hydrate formation temperature
depression of streams 5 and 7
increases, which requires a higher
MEG injection rate. Figure 4 presents
the impact of LCO on the rate of
streams EG1 and EG2 upstream
of Gas/Gas HX and the chiller,
respectively. Note the required
inhibitor injection rate for stream EG2
upstream of the chiller increases
considerably with the increase in
LCO.
If there is carryover of the
hydrocarbon phase, there is also
Fig 4. Impact of liquid carryover on the MEG injection rate upstream of Gas/Gas HX (EG1)
and chiller (EG2)
a likelihood of carryover of the
glycol phase. This can result in
problems meeting the water dewpoint
specification and also introduces a
deleterious substance into the sales
gas (MEG) which may also not be
allowed in the sales gas contract.
Lowering the chiller temperature
to counter the effect of LCO also
cause an increase in the compressor
power, Gas/Gas-gas HX, chiller and
condenser duties. Figures 5 A and
B illustrate the impact of LCO on the
compressor power and Gas-Gas HX,
Chiller, and condenser duty in SI and
FPS system of units, respectively.
46
Fig 5A. Impact of liquid carryover on the compressor power, Gas-Gas HX, chiller, and
condenser duty

Fig 5B. Impact of liquid carryover on the compressor power, Gas/Gas HX, chiller, and
condenser duty
47
 Figure 6 presents the impact of LCO liquids from the inlet separator are
on the liquid propane and sales gas introduced lower in the column. V-100
recoveries. This figure indicates that is not required then. E-102 is usually
as the LCO increases from 0 to 3 a feed/bottoms heat exchanger.
mole %, the liquid propane recoveries Overhead of the deethanizer can
increase from about 17% to 27% on likely go to the sales gas and may not
mole basis but the sales gas recovery have to be recycled. It really should
decreases slightly from about 97 % not contain anything heavier than
to 96 % on mole basis. The extra propane, heavy key (HK).
propane liquid recovery is achieved
Table 4 presents the impact of LCO
by operating the chiller at a lower
on the key equipment incremental
temperature which requires higher
capacity requirement to meet the
OPEX and CAPEX.
sales gas hydrocarbon dewpoint
As the chiller temperature is reduced, temperature by lowering the chiller
more ethane and methane end up in temperature. Assume the system
the low temperature separator (LTS), was built with a design margin factor
V-102, liquids. These need to get of 1.25. Table 4 indicates that this
boiled out in the deethanizer, so the system can handle up to one mole
duty of E-102 increases, reboiler and % LCO with higher OPEX. However,
condenser duty of the deethanizer for more than one mole % LCO,
increase, and the recompression the system cannot lower chiller
power in K-100 also increases. It temperature enough to meet the sales
may also be possible to flood the gas dewpoint temperature. As shown
deethanizer. in Table 4, the compressor power,
hydrate inhibition rate, condenser and
The cold condenser on the chiller duties are the limiting factors.
deethanizer requires propane for Under such condition it may require
cooling. These units are also designed plant shutdown for trouble shooting to
with no condenser. The cold LTS (V- reduce the LCO.
102) liquid is used as reflux, and the

Table 4. Estimate of equipment incremental capacity requirement to handle liquid carryover

48
Summary:
The common practice to meet
sales gas hydrocarbon dewpoint
temperature under the condition of
liquid carry is to operate the chiller at
a temperature below the sales gas
hydrocarbon dewpoint spec. This is
only possible if the key equipment
can handle the extra load with higher
OPEX. This tip demonstrated the
impact of varying the LCO from 0 to
3 % on a mole basis on the process
stream rates, phase behavior, the
equipment sizes and the refrigeration
requirement.
As demonstrated in this tip, it would
be a good practice to size the
equipment with a design margin of
1.2 to 1.3 to consider the changes
in operation conditions and the
liquid carryover. Most important to
minimize LCO is to have a properly
designed separator with good feed
pipe, inlet device, mist extractor, gas
gravity separation and liquid gravity
separation sections.
To learn more about similar cases and
how to minimize operational problems,
we suggest attending our G4 (Gas
Conditioning and Processing), G5
(Practical Computer Simulation
6. UniSim Design R443, Build 19153,
Applications in Gas Processing), and
PF42 (Separation Equipment - Sizing Honeywell International Inc., 2017.
and Selection) courses.
References:
1. Moshfeghian, M., http://www.jmcampbell.
com/tip-of-the-month/2005/12/impact-of-
liquid-carry-over-on-sales-gas-dew-point/,
PetroSkills -John M. Campbell Tip of the
Month, December 2005.
2. Moshfeghian, M., https://www.petroskills.
com/blog/entry/00_totm/jan19-fac-
optimizing-performance-of-refrigeration-
systems-with-an-external-sub-cool-
economizer, PetroSkills -John M. Campbell
Tip of the Month, January 2019.
3. Moshfeghian, M., https://www.petroskills.
com/blog/entry/00_totm/feb19-fac-impact-
of-heavy-end-on-the-performance-of-a-
mechanical-refrigeration-plant-with-meg-
injection, PetroSkills -John M. Campbell Tip
of the Month, February 2019.
4. Campbell, J.M., “Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 1: The Fundamentals,”
9th Edition, 3rd Printing, Editors Hubbard,
R. and Snow–McGregor, K., Campbell
Petroleum
5. Campbell, J.M., “Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 2: The Equipment
Modules,” 9th Edition, 3rd Printing, Editors
Hubbard, R. and Snow–McGregor, K.,
Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman,
Oklahoma, PetroSkills 2018.
 A SHORT CUT METHOD FOR
E VA LUAT I N G M O L E C U L A R S I E V E
PERFORMANCE

Published May 2019

Written by: Harvey H. Malino, P.E.

50
This Tip of the Month shows how a
Short Cut Method (SCM), after one
Performance Test Run (PTR), may be
used to estimate the life of a Type 4A
molecular sieve dehydrating a water-
saturated feed of natural gas.
The May 2015 Tip of the Month [1]
discussed the benefits of standby
time. In that Tip (which the reader
is urged to revisit), a case study was
presented for a 3-tower dehydration
system. The system was designed
to meet a three-year life; however,
a PTR after one year of service
predicted the total life of the molecular calculates the life factor, FL, which
sieve would only be about two years.
Using the available stand-by time, the compared to visually reading the
molecular sieve life was extended to
about 3.7 years.
The above results were calculated
used the concepts outlined in
Chapter 18 of Gas Conditioning
and Processing, Volume 2: The
Equipment Modules (9th Edition)
[2]. Due to the non-linearity of the
modeling techniques, the manual
calculations are tedious. The June
2016 Tip of the Month [3] showed how
a computer module developed for the
PetroSkills-John M. Campbell GCAP
(Gas Conditioning and Processing
Software) [4] could be used to perform
the same calculations. Among other
things, the GCAP module directly
generates more consistent results
Generic Molecular Sieve Decline
Curves (Figure 1).

Fig 1. A generica molecular sieve decline curves [1]

51
Short Cut Method (SCM):
By making a few simplifying
assumptions, manual calculations
can be performed on the back of
an envelope. This SCM permits an
operator or a facility engineer to
quickly determine the life expectancy
of the molecular sieves. The
assumptions, which cover the majority
of natural gas dehydration units in the
field, include:
1. Water-saturated natural gas is the
feed
2. The feed conditions remain
relatively constant throughout the life
of the molecular sieve system
3. Type 4A-1/8 inch (3 mm) pellets or
4x8 beads are used
4. The fresh equilibrium loading is 23
weight percent water
5. The residual loading is 4 weight
percent water
6. 5 % of the bed weight is devoted to
the Mass Transfer Zone (MTZ)
7. Normal life degradation following
the curve shapes in Figure 1. If upsets Summary. Table 3 shows the
such as liquid carryover, bed lifting, Results of the PTR after one year
bed support failure, valve hang-ups,
contaminants in the regeneration
gas, flow channeling or other adverse are slightly different than the design
conditions occur, the shape of the
curves in Figure 1 will be quite
different.
Chapter 18 of Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 2: The Equipment
Modules (9th Edition) [2] contains
equations that permit us to calculate
the total mass of the molecular sieve,
the Break Through Loading (BTL,
or Useful Loading), and the aged
net equilibrium loading. Using the
assumptions listed above together
with the equations in Chapter 18 it can
be shown that:
FL = BTL/18 (1)
where:
FL = Life factor
BTL = (100)(mass of water removed/
mass of molecular sieve) (2)
The remainder of this Tip of the Month
will compare the results of the SCM
to those obtained from the rigorous
manual method and the computer-
generated method.
SCM vs Rigorous Method:
Figure 2 shows the Process Flow
Diagram used for the Case Study
[2]. Tables 1 gives the Design
Basis. Table 2 presents the Design
of operation (note the feed flow rate
and the temperature during the PTR
basis).
52
 Fig 2. Typical process flow diagram for a 3-tower adsorption dehydration system [2]

Table 1. Design basis for the case study

Table 2. Design Summary for the case study

53
 Table 3. Results of Performance Test Run (PTR) after 12 months of operation
Additional information used in the
Case Study:
►3 tower system (2 towers on
adsorption, 1 on regeneration)
►External Insulation
►Tower ID = 2.9 m (9.5 ft)
►Each tower contains 24630 kg
[54300 lbm] of Type 4A 4x8 mesh
beads and is designed to last three
years.
►Regeneration circuit capable of
handling an extra 15% of flow
►Unit is operated on fixed time cycles
►No step-change events such as
liquid carryover, poor flow distribution,
etc.
Following is a recipe for using the
SCM:
1. Use Equation 2 to calculate the
design BTL = 10.6 wt %
►BTL =100 (16 h)(163 kg water
removed/h)/(24630 kg mol sieve)
=10.6%
►BTL =100 (16 hr)(360 lbm water
removed/hr)/(54300 lbm mol sieve)
=10.6%
2. Use Equation 1 to calculate the
design FL = 10.6/18 = 0.59
3. Locate the design FL at 1095
cycles on Figure 3, Calculated Life
Factors (FL=0.59 & 3 years of 24-hour
cycles per tower is equivalent to 1095
cycles). This is the Design FL Point.
4. Use Equation 2 to calculate the
PTR BTL = 12.0 wt %
►BTL =100 (20.9 h)(141 kg water
removed/h)/(24630 kg mol sieve)
=12%
54
►BTL =100 (20.9 hr)(312 lbm water
removed/hr)/(54300 lbm mol sieve)
=12%
5. Use Equation 1 to calculate the
PTR FL = 12/18 = 0.67
6. Locate the PTR FL at 365 cycles
on Figure3, Calculated Life Factors
(FL=0.67 & one year of 24-hour cycles
per tower is equivalent to 365 cycles).
This is the PTR FL Point.
Fig 3. Calculated Life Factors
7. Because the PTR FL Point falls
on a curve lower than the Design
FL Point, we need to be concerned.
Interpolating and extrapolating the
capacity decline curve from the
PTR FL Point, we see an FL of 0.67
(the Design FL) will occur after a
total of about 750 cycles. This is
approximately one year shorter than
the expected life.
55
Because the unit has a regeneration
circuit that can handle an additional
15% of flow, the complete
regeneration cycle (heating, cooling,
de- and re- pressurization) can be
reduced to 7.0 hours. This allows
the beds to turn around faster. Using
the reduced cycle time (the complete
cycle time is now 21 hours vs the
original 24 hours) and the original
design basis conditions with the SCM
recipe:
1. Calculate End of Life BTL = 9.3 wt
% (from Equation 2).
►BTL =100 (14 h)(163 kg water
removed/h)/(24630 kg mol sieve)
=9.3%
►BTL =100 (14 hr)(360 lbm water
removed/hr)/(54300 lbm mol sieve)
=9.3%
2. Calculate End of Life FL = 9.3/18
= 0.52 (from Equation 1). This is
because less water is being adsorbed
per cycle.
3. Interpolating and extrapolating
from the PTR FL Point, we find the
End of Life FL of 0.52 occurs around
1400 cycles (see Figure 4). Since
365 cycles have already occurred and
going forward a reduced cycle time
will be used, the molecular sieves are
forecast to last a total of 3.5 years.
Table 4 compares the results of
the SCM to the rigorous manual
calculations (May 2015 Tip of the
Month) and the computer-generated
calculations (June 2016 Tip of the
Month).
The difference between the predicted
life using standby time shown by
the Computer Model and the two
manual methods is primarily due
to the inherent inaccuracy of trying
to interpolate and extrapolate data
plotted on Figures 3 and 4. The
computer model will produce the
same result every time. This cannot
be said when visually reading Figures
3 and 4. Figure 5 shows the output
from the GCAP Computer Model [3].
Note that when working on one curve,
the higher the calculated EOL FL, the
fewer the Number of Cycles (NOC)
remaining until the beds need to be
replaced.
The PTR in the above Case Study
was run after 365 cycles. The slope
of the curve is fairly steep in this
region and small changes in data
can have a significant impact on the
life predictions. While the user can
get a good indication of the state
of decline of their molecular sieve
unit, scheduling additional PTR’s is
highly recommended. Finally, generic
curves are used in these Figures. The
shape of your specific molecular sieve
capacity decline curve may differ from
these generic curves. Despite these
caveats, the SCM offers the user a
quick and easy way to assess the
capacity decline of their molecular
sieve unit.
56
 Fig 4. Calculated Life Factors Using Standby Time

Table 4. Comparison of Three Methods

57
Fig 5. Projected life factor (LF = 54.3% and NOC = 1251.4) if standby time is used
Summary:
We can draw the following
conclusions from this case study:
►The short-cut method presented
allows the user to quickly estimate
the decline of their adsorbent based
on only one performance test run for
molecular sieve dehydrators using
low-pressure regeneration. This
permits the early formulation of a
credible action plan. The short-cut
method compares reasonably well to
the rigorous manual approach and the
computer-generated model which also
require only one performance test run.
►Both manual methods rely on a
visual interpolation and extrapolation
of the generic molecular sieve decline
curves. The computer-generated
approach provides much more
consistent results.
►All the methods presented in these
Tips of the Month rely on open-art
technology. The molecular sieve
vendors use proprietary methods
specific to their manufacturing
techniques. Consequently, the results
of the approaches presented in these
Tips of the Month should be used
to generate trends as opposed to
absolute values.
58
►Site-specific factors will determine
your unit’s decline curve. Conducting
more than one performance test is
highly recommended.
►Standby time offers a large degree
of operating flexibility because the
decline curves tend to level off; always
try to build in standby time in any new
molecular sieve design.
►Adsorption capacity is a function
of the number of cycles, not calendar
time.
►Install a good filter coalescer or filter
separator upstream of your adsorption 4. GCAP 9.2.1 Software, PetroSkills –
unit to keep the contaminants out of
the system.
To learn more about similar cases and 2016.
how to minimize operational problems,
we suggest attending our G4 (Gas
Conditioning and Processing) and
PF-4 (Oil Production and Processing
Facilities) courses.
References
1. Malino, H.M., http://www.jmcampbell.
com/tip-of-the-month/2015/05/benefits-of-
standby-time-in-adsorption-dehydration-
process/, PetroSkills – John M. Campbell,
2015
2. Campbell, J.M., “Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 2: The Equipment
Modules,” 9th Edition, 3nd Printing, Editors
Hubbard, R. and Snow–McGregor, K.,
Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman,
Oklahoma, 2018.
3. Moshfeghian, M. http://www.jmcampbell.
com/tip-of-the-month/2016/06/projecting-
the-performance-of-adsorption-dehydration-
process/, PetroSkills – John M. Campbell,
2016
John M Campbell “Gas Conditioning and
Processing Computer Program,” Editor
Moshfeghian, M., PetroSkills, Katy, Texas,
59
60
60
 I M PAC T O F T E M P E R AT U R E
A P P ROAC H O F T H E H E AT E XC H A N G E R S
ON THE CAPEX AND OPEX OF A
M E C H A N I C A L R E F R I G E R AT I O N P L A N T
WITH MEG INJECTION

Published June 2019

Written by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

The design or specified minimum and the operation of the mechanical

temperature approach of a heat refrigeration system will be investigated
exchanger has a significant effect and reported. In addition, the
on the total heat transfer area annualized CAPEX, Annual OPEX
required. As a result, the specified (Energy Cost) and annual total cost
temperature approach (TA) should as a function of the gas-gas heat
be carefully considered in the exchanger (HX) hot end TA will be
heat exchanger specification reported.
process as this is one of the
The details of a mechanical
primary factors in heat exchanger
refrigeration plant with MEG injection
capital cost. Depending upon heat
and regeneration system are given
exchanger service and type, there
in Chapters 6, 15 and 18 of the Gas
are typical economic minimum
Conditioning and Processing, Volumes
temperature approaches which
1 and 2 [2, 3], respectively.
have been determined from industry
experience. Figure 1 presents the process flow
diagrams for a typical HCDP control
Continuing the April 2019 [1] Tip
plant using mechanical refrigeration
of The Month (TOTM), this tip
with MEG injection system. This figure
investigates the impact of the TA on
is similar to the Apr 2019 TOTM [1]
the performance of a mechanical
which utilizes a flash tank economizer
refrigeration plant with mono-
with two stages of compression. In this
ethylene glycol (EG or MEG)
tip, all simulations were performed with
injection for hydrocarbon dew
UniSim Design R443 software [4] using
point (HCDP) control. Specifically,
the Peng-Robinson equation of state.
how the TA impacts the gas-gas
heat exchanger, chiller duties

61
Fig 1. Process flow diagrams for an HCDP plant using mechanical refrigeration with a
flash tank economizer and MEG Injection system
Introduction (Extracted from
Chapter 12 of Reference [3]):
The surface area of a heat exchanger
can be calculated by Equation 1.
(1)
Where:
A = heat exchanger area in m2 [ft2]
Q = heat transfer rate in kW [Btu/hr]
Uo = overall heat transfer coefficient in
W/ (m2 oC) [Btu/(hr-ft2-oF)]
ΔTeff = effective temperature
difference oC [oF]
Figure 2 presents a temperature
profile as a function of heat transfer
in a chiller and a gas-gas HX. In the
chiller, the process fluid is partially
condensing in the tube side, and pure
propane is boiling in the shell side.
In the gas-gas HX, the process fluid
(stream 5) is partially condensing in
the tube side and the gas stream 4
is warming (no phase change) in the
shell side.
The only temperatures that can be
conveniently measured are at the
inlet and outlet of the exchanger. The
largest difference on one end of the
heat exchanger will be referred to as
ΔT1, the smaller ΔT2, which is also
called the minimum approach.
62
Fig 2. Effective Temperature Difference Schematics [2]
Equation 2 provides a simple
method for estimating the effective
temperature difference (ΔTeff) in the
exchanger.
(2)
Where:
LMTD = log mean temperature
difference
ΔTeff = temperature difference
corrected for heat exchanger
configuration
F = TEMA MTD Correction Factor
ΔT1 = largest ΔT (at one end of the
heat exchanger)
ΔT2 = smallest ΔT (at one end of the
heat exchanger)
Equation 2 is based on several
assumptions. The primary one being
that the heating and cooling curves
(T vs Q) for the exchanger streams
are linear. For multi-component fluids
this is true when there is little or no
phase change in the exchanger. If
you apply this equation, always have
a look at the cooling curves to verify
this assumption is adequate the
application.
Notices in this equation that as ΔT2
(minimum approach) decreases, ΔTeff
decreases and the required heat
transfer area increases as shown
in Equation 1. This increase can be
significant as ΔTeff approaches zero.
On the other hand, smaller values
of ΔT2 in the gas-gas exchanger for
a refrigeration plant decreases the
utility costs (power and fuel) there is
more “free cold energy” transferred
in the heat exchanger. For this
63
specific process application (gas-
gas exchanger) both effects should
be considered in heat exchanger
specifications.
Note that the minimum approach may
occur at the “hot” end or “cold” end
of the exchanger depending on the
application. The minimum approach
may also occur internally inside
the exchanger. Typical economic
minimum approaches for various
heat exchangers and applications are
presented in Table 1.
For compact exchangers, smaller
minimum approaches are usually
economically justifiable. Compact heat
exchangers have a greater surface
area per volume than shell and tube
heat exchangers. In addition, they
have higher fluid velocities, which
result in greater overall heat transfer
coefficients.
Table 1. Typical Heat Exchanger Approach
Ranges [3]
Case Study:
Let’s consider the same case
presented in Apr 2019 TOTM [1] for
a rich gas with the compositions and
conditions presented in Table 2 [1].
Based on the reported molecular
weight and relative density for the
C7+ fraction, Table 3 presents the
estimated normal boiling point (NBP),
critical properties and acentric factor
which, are needed by the equation
of state. The objective is to meet a
hydrocarbon dew point specification of
-20 °C (-4 °F) at about 4000 kPa (580
psia) for the sales gas by removing
heat in the “Gas/Gas” heat exchanger
(HX) with a hot end TA of 5°C (9°F)
and in a propane chiller, 5 °C (-4 °F)
TA, and rejecting it to the environment
by a propane condenser (AC-100) at
37.8°C (100°F). Pure propane is used
as the working fluid in the simulation.
The pressure drops in the “Gas/
Gas” HX and the propane chiller are
assumed to be 34.5 kPa (5 psi).
Table 2. Rich feed gas compositions and
conditions
64
Table 3. Estimated C7+ properties [4]

The feed gas is flashed in the “Inlet compressors “K-101” and “K-102”, the
Separator” at 30 °C (86 °F) and resulting suction pressure is 203.3
4000 kPa (580 psia) to remove any kPa (29.5 psia).
condensate. The “Inlet Separator” The condensing propane pressure at
vapor (stream 2) is saturated with the specified condenser temperature
water by the “Saturate -100” to form of 37.8 °C (100 °F) is 1303 kPa
stream “2 Wet” upstream of mixing (189 psi). The condenser “AC-
with MEG hydrate inhibitor, stream 100” frictional losses, plus the
“EG1” and the recycle stream “18A” frictional losses in the piping from
from the deethanizer overhead vapor the compressor discharge to the
(located at the right-hand side of Fig. condenser were assumed to be
1). 34.5 kPa (5 psi); therefore, the
The estimated hydrate formation discharge pressure of compressor
temperature (HFT) of streams 5 and “K-102” is 1338 kPa (194 psia). The
7 is 14.7 °C (58.4 °F). The hydrate compressors interstage pressure
inhibitor is injected at the inlet of was determined by equalizing the
“Gas/Gas” HX by stream “EG1” and power for “K-101” and “K-102”. The
at the inlet of the “Chiller” by stream compressors adiabatic efficiency was
“EG2”. Stream “5” cools to about -8 °C assumed to be 75%.
(17.6 °F) and stream “7” cools down The cold Stream 7 is flashed in the
to the specified temperature of -20 3-phase separator “V-102” at -20
°C (-4 °F), which is below the HFT °C (-°4F) and 3931 kPa (570 psia).
of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F). The injection The vapor stream “4” from this cold
rates of streams “EG1” and “EG2” separator is used to cool down the
for 80-weight % lean MEG and water incoming warm feed gas in the “Gas/
solution are estimated manually or by Gas” HX. The heavy liquid stream
the Adjust tool of UniSim. A design “8B” (rich MEG solution) from the
margin of 1 °C (1.8 °F) HFT below the cold separator is regenerated in the
cold temperature for streams “5” and regeneration unit (not shown in Fig.
“7” were assumed. 1) and the lean 80 weight % MEG is
Assuming a temperature approach recycled and used in streams “EG1”
of 5°C (9°F) and a 6.9 kPa (1 psi) and “EG2”. The cold NGL stream
pressure drop in the propane chiller “8” (light liquid phase) from the cold
“Chiller” shell side, the pressure of separator, “V-102”, is combined with
saturated propane vapor leaving the the plant “Inlet Separator” condensate
chiller is 203.3 kPa (29.5 psia), and (stream “3”) in the mixer “Mix-101” to
at a temperature of -25°C (-13°F). form stream “9” at about 5 °C (41 °F)
Assuming no frictional losses in and 3945 kPa (572.2 psia). To prepare
the suction line to the propane the liquid to be fed to the deethanizer,
65
the process specification is to raise Table 4. Summary of deethanizer key
the temperature of the NGL product design parameters
stream “9A” from about -4°C (25°F)
and 1535 kPa (222.6 psia) to 20 °C
(68 °F) and 1500 kPa (217.6 psia) in
“E-102” HX. The process duty and
the temperature of the NGL product
stream is set by the deethanizer
process requirements. The pressure
drops in “E-102” HX is 35 kPa (5 psi).

Deethanizer Specifications and

Performance:
ike the Apr 2019 TOTM [1], the
deethanizer column specifications are:

► To recover 90 mole percent of

propane of the feed in the bottom
product and

►. Ethane to propane mole ratio

equal to 5 % in the bottom’s product
►. Top and bottom pressures are
1450 and 1500 kPa (210.3 and 217.6
psia); respectively
► Number of theoretical stages
12 plus the condenser and reboiler
(determined by the material balance
and column shortcut calculations)
The deethanizer simulation results are
summarized in Table 4.
Impact of Gas/Gas HX Hot End
Temperature Approach:
The Gas/Gas HX utilizes the cold
temperature of stream 4 at -20 °C
(-°4F) to cool down stream 2A. The
specified temperature approach (TA)
sets the sales gas temperature, which
is equal to stream 2A temperature
minus the TA. Decreasing the hot
end TA increases the heat duty of the
Gas/Gas HX, which decreases the
stream 5 temperature and reduces
the required chiller duty. Typically,
the Gas/Gas HX removes about
70% of the total required cooling
duty to meet the specified sales gas
dewpoint temperature. Therefore,
the chiller duty decreases resulting in
lower compressor power, decreased
66
propane refrigerant circulation rate,
and reduced propane refrigerant
condenser duty requirements. This tip
investigates the impact of the hot end
TA for the Gas/Gas HX for a range
of 1 to 11 °C (1.8 to 19.8 °F) while
keeping the chiller TA constant at 5 °C
(9 °F).
Figure 3 presents the impact of TA
on the MEG injection rate of streams
EG1 and EG2 upstream of Gas/Gas
HX and the chiller, respectively. As
the hot end TA increases, stream 5
temperature increases but the stream
Fig 3. Impact of the temperature approach on the MEG injection rate upstream of Gas/
Gas HX (EG1) and chiller (EG2)
7 temperature remains constant at
the set value; therefore, the HFT
depression of stream 5 (d = HFT
minus Stream 5 T) decreases and the
required MEG injection rate of stream
EG1 decreases. However, the MEG
injection rate of stream EG2 increases
because the total HFT depression
temperature (d = HFT minus Stream
7 T) is constant; therefore, the total
MEG injection (EG1 + EG2) rate stays
the same. The calculated EG1 and
EG2 were summed up and presented
in Figure 3.
67
Increasing TA causes a decrease
in the Gas/Gas-gas HX duty, which
results in an increase in the chiller
duty because the total cooling
duty is constant. As the chiller duty
decreases, the compressor power
and condenser duty decreases, too.
Figures 4 A and B illustrate the impact
of TA on the compressor power, Gas/
Gas HX, Chiller, and condenser
duty in SI and FPS system of units,
respectively.
In order to calculate the required
surface area of the heat exchangers a
design factor of 1.25 and the following
overall heat transfer coefficients in W/
m2-°C (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) were assumed:
Gas/Gas HX = 283 (50), Chiller = 444
(78), and Condenser = 460 (81).
Fig 4A. Impact of the temperature approach on the Gas/Gas HX, chiller and condenser
duty, and compressor power
Figure 5 presents the impact of TA on
the required surface area of the Gas/
Gas HX, chiller and the refrigerant
condenser. This figure indicates that
the Gas/Gas HX required area is
much greater than the chiller and
condenser area because it has
greater heat duty. Note for TA cases
of 1 and 2 °C (1.8 and 3.6 °F) the
required surface areas of Gas/Gas
HX are greater than 6000 m2 (64,590
ft2); therefore, two HXs of 50% of the
required area should be used [5].
68
Fig 4B. Impact of the temperature approach on the Gas/Gas HX, chiller and condenser
duty, and compressor power

Fig 5. Impact of the temperature approach on the Gas/Gas HX, chiller and condenser
surface area 69
The procedure suggested by Hubbard
[5] was used to perform the cost
analysis. The CAPEX is the sum of
the HXs and compressor costs. The
HXs cost was estimated based on
the size and surface area for the shell
and tube types HXs. It is assumed
that the maximum shell diameter is
1.97 m (6 ft) and the L/D was 10.
For these dimensions, the maximum
surface area per shell is about 6000
m2 (64,590 ft2). For TA cases of 1
and 2 oC (1.8 and 3.6 oF), the Gas/
Gas HX with an area greater than
6000 m2 (64,590 ft2) two HXs with
50% required area were used. The
compressor CAPEX was estimated
based on the required power with
a design factor of 1.25. Annualized
Fig 6. Impact of the temperature approach on the annual OPEX, annualized
CAPEX and the total annual cost
CAPEX cost was estimated based
on 5 years recovery. The annual
OPEX (energy cost) was estimated
based on the compressor power
requirement. The total cost is the
sum of the annualized CAPEX and
annual OPEX (energy cost). These
costs are based on a design factor
of 1.25. Because total MEG injection
rate and deethanizer performance
are independent of TA, they were
excluded in the cost analysis.
Figure 6 presents the impact of TA
on the estimated annualized CAPEX,
annual OPEX (energy cost), and the
total annual cost. This figure indicates
that the optimum TA for the Gas/Gas
HX occurs at 3 °C (5.4 °F).
70
Summary: go to 2 parallel shells, which makes
sense because here we have a step
This tip demonstrated the impact of change in the configuration. When
temperature approach (TA) on the the temperature correction factor, F
trade-off between CAPEX and OPEX < 0.8, we usually add another shell
for the mechanical refrigeration of in series, which may also give step
a HCDP control plant. The heat changes. Typically these exchangers
exchanger costs are based on rough have 2 or 3 shells in series at the final
estimates; therefore, the economic configuration.
evaluation presented does not
represent the actual costs. The Gas/ To learn more about similar cases and
Gas HX areas are extremely large how to minimize operational problems,
for TA cases of 1 and 2 oC (1.8 and we suggest attending our G4 (Gas
3.6 oF). It is unlikely that Shell and Conditioning and Processing), G5
Tube exchangers of this size could (Practical Computer Simulation
even be manufactured. The Gas/ Applications in Gas Processing) and
Gas HX CAPEX for the TA cases of 1 PF42 (Separation Equipment - Sizing
and 2 oC (1.8 and 3.6 oF) assumed and Selection) courses.
two exchangers of the 50 % required
surface area. If a new mechanical
dewpoint facility were built today,
it is probably that the Gas/Gas HX
and the chiller would almost certainly
be a compact heat exchanger, such
as a plate-fin or printed circuit. The
compact heat exchanger designs
have significantly greater surface
area per volume than shell and
tube heat exchangers which allows
them to achieve smaller economic
temperature approaches for a given
capital cost.
The minimum cost is at 3 °C (5.4
°F), which is where we must go
to 2 parallel shells, which makes
sense because here we have a step
change in the configuration. When
the temperature correction factor, F
< 0.8, we usually add another shell
in series, which may also give step
changes. Typically these exchangers
have 2 or 3 shells in series at the final
configuration.The minimum cost is at
3 °C (5.4 °F), which is where we must
71
References:
1. Moshfeghian, M., http://
www.jmcampbell.com/
tip-of-the-month/2019/04/
Impact-of -liquid-carryover-on-
performance-of-refrigeration-
system-with-a-flash-tank-
economizer/, PetroSkills
-John M. Campbell Tip of the
Month, April 2019.
2. Campbell, J.M.,
“Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Volume 1: The
Fundamentals,” 9th Edition,
3rd Printing, Editors Hubbard,
R. and Snow–McGregor, K.,
Campbell Petroleum
3. Campbell, J.M., “Gas
Conditioning and Processing,
Volume 2: The Equipment
Modules,” 9th Edition, 3rd
Printing, Editors Hubbard,
R. and Snow–McGregor,
K., Campbell Petroleum
Series, Norman, Oklahoma,
PetroSkills 2018.
4. UniSim Design R443,
Build 19153, Honeywell
International Inc., 2017.
5. Hubbard, R.A., Personal
Communication, March 2019.

72