Cost Effective Sulfur Recovery Solutions For Canada's Greener Environment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract To strive to achieve a greener environment for the well being of Canadian citizens and residents, Canadian environmental regulatory agencies continue to promulgate more stringent standards for sulfur emissions from processing facilities of Oil &Gas Production, Petrochemical and Refining industries. Due to these stringent sulfur emissions regulations, operation reliability of sulfur recovery facility becomes vital to warrant continuous daily overall plant operation. It is therefore important for operators to understand the relevant sulfur issues to facilitate their selection and implementation of proper advanced, reliable and cost effective technologies for sulfur recovery to ensure continuous, reliable and smooth plant operation, thus achieving and maintaining a greener environment. This paper focuses on key advanced technologies for cost effective conversion and recovery of H2S from gas streams to elemental sulfur. Technology and design considerations in handling contaminants contained in the feed gases, in enhancing overall sulfur recovery efficiency and in increasing processing capacity will be addressed in this paper. The following key considerations will be dealt with in detail in the paper.Quality and compositions of acid gases: Cost effective technologies to handle contaminants such ammonia, Benzene, Toluene and Xylene (BTX), and cyanides etc.Sulfur Recovery Efficiency Enhancement: Cost effective technology and optimum process configurations for revamping existing units and installing new units in enhancing sulfur recovery efficiency.Cost effective solutions for expanding processing capacity of existing sulfur plants. To absolutely minimize the sulfur emissions and in the interest of operation personnel safety, increasing activities in recovering H2S and entrained elemental sulfur from vent gases purged from sulfur pits, sulfur storage tanks and sulfur tank car loading/unloading facilities are seen in refining and gas processing facilities. Regulatory requirements for such recovery impose interesting challenges for operators and designers. This paper addresses various technology options for accomplishing the desired sulfur recovery in meeting the regulatory requirements. Pros and cons of these various technology options will be discussed in this paper. This paper also provides an overview of short term and long term economic implications in utilizing and implementing these advanced technologies. Introduction In the wake of the global warming and acid rain issues, environmental regulatory agencies around the globe continue to promulgate more stringent standards for sulfur emissions from processing facilities of Oil &Gas Production, Petrochemical and Refining industries. Sulfur emission regulations govern both single point emission source such as the sulfur recovery plant and a bubble source such as the entire processing facility. These regulations in Canada require new plants to achieve sulfur recovery in the range of 98.5 to 99.7 percent. It is expected that these standards will become more stringent in the future. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) and Alberta Environment (AENV) believe that "sulfur recovery requirements represent minimum expectations and that it is in the public interest for operators of sour gas plants to implement continuous improvement programs to reduce emissions. Particularly in the case of grandfathered sour gas plants, operators are encouraged to take cost-effective measures early to enhance sulfur recovery beyond the minimum requirements discussed in Section 3.1 of Interim Directive ID 2001–3 (italics added)."1 It is advisable to select and implement
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».