New, Lower-Cost Acid Gas Removal and Sulfur Recovery Technology for Permian Basin Natural Gas Production Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New, Lower-Cost Acid Gas Removal and Sulfur Recovery Technology for Permian Basin Natural Gas Production Operations Dennis Leppin Dennis Leppin GRI Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 2000. Paper Number: SPE-59712-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/59712-MS Published: March 21 2000 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Leppin, Dennis. "New, Lower-Cost Acid Gas Removal and Sulfur Recovery Technology for Permian Basin Natural Gas Production Operations." Paper presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 2000. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/59712-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractTechnology developments for lowering gas treating and sulfur recovery costs for Permian basin gas have been underway for several years by GRI (formerly Gas Research Institute) and other technology development organizations. Several of these technologies are now nearing the point where commercial applications should be evaluated since significant cost savings and operational simplifications could be achieved by early adopters. After a cursory review of current technology in gas treating and sulfur recovery, this paper summarizes applicable new technology in this area developed by the author's company and others including advances in H2S scavenging, small-scale sulfur recovery up to 15–20 TPD and large-scale gas treating for high acid gas concentration applications.IntroductionGas treating and sulfur recovery from gas production in the Permian basin is not an insignificant contributor to total cost of production in the area. Much of the oil production in this region is with the use of CO2 flooding which carries with it attendant costs of CO2 recovery and reinjection. The presence of H2S in the gas complicates the recovery and reinjection of CO2 and adds to the cost. GRI and others have been developing new treating and sulfur recovery technology and software and the state-of-the-art with respect to these new developments is summarized herein.BackgroundGRI's gas composition databasei was used to examine the amount of gas needing treatment for high CO2 and/or H2S. The database uses the following 25 basins to define the aggregate Permian Basin statistics: Abo, Atoka, Canyon, Cisco, Clear Fork, Delaware, Devonian, Ellenburger, Fusselman, Grayburg, Judkins, Mckee, McKnight, Montoya, Morrow, Pennsylvanian, Queen, San Andres, Silurian, Strawn, Tubb, Wichita Albany, Wolfcamp, and Yates. There is an additional basin termed Other to aggregate any additional resources required. Defining several categories of subquality production, we have 300 Bcf of annual production (1996) where H2S is > 4ppmv, 90 Bcf where CO2 > 2% by vol, and 179 Bcf where both of these conditions prevail at the same time. There is some additional production, around 100 Bcf, where the nitrogen level is in excess of 4%. Presumably, this latter gas is sold via blending with high BTU gas. EOR associated gas production is not included in these estimates. The total of ~700 Bcf represents on the order of 3% of U.S. current production. If we estimate the cost of treating and sulfur recovery of this production at 10¢ per Mscf, then we have a cumulative Permian basin-wide cost on the order of $70 million. It is clear that reduced costs for these operations are of some interest to producers, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by technology developers in this field. Keywords: upstream oil & gas, lower-cost acid gas removal, liquid redox process, gas processing, production chemistry, oilfield chemistry, gas injection method, tail gas, recovery, co 2 Subjects: Production Chemistry, Metallurgy and Biology, Processing Systems and Design, Natural Gas Conversion and Storage, Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Health, Gas processing, Liquified natural gas (LNG), Gas-injection methods, Noise, chemicals, and other workplace hazards, Corrosion inhibition and management (including H2S and CO2) This content is only available via PDF. 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".