الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 139 |  |  |
| | | from | 139 | | |
Abstract
Gas flaring is one of the top energy and environmental challenges the world is facing nowadays. Meeting energy demand over the next century will require not just producing more, but also using what we do produce more efficiently. World Bank data indicated that a total of 145 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM) of gas flaring was recorded worldwide in the year 2016. Egypt share in gas flaring was 2.83 BCM which is approximately 2% of the total(1) . This led to the implementation of no-flare design through Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) systems which aim to minimize the energy losses and reducing the emissions from production. In this thesis, efforts have been done to tackle the gas flaring problem taking into consideration the expectations that gas flaring will not be allowed in the near future with increasing awareness of the environmental impact and the ratification of the Kyoto protocol(2) by most of the member countries. This thesis discussed the technical and economical aspects of FGR in Egypt targeting the remotely located oil production facilities, which are far-off infrastructure, where in the current situation there is no other option to associated gas flaring. A case study has been done based on one of the Egyptian Oil Production Facilities Kalabsha Oil Facility - Khalda Petroleum Company. The reported amount of flared gas from Kalabsha Oil Facility is 4 MMSCFD. The aim of the study was to select an optimum configuration for FGR considering the technical and economical aspects. The study considered the flexibility to relocate the FGR train from one oil production plant to another in the future. Accordingly, the new FGR unit was built as skid mounted to accomplish this target. Moreover, to achieve higher flexibility in operation, the new FGR units were designed based two typical and parallel trains based on a capacity of 2 MMSCFD each. Two flare gas recovery schemes were simulated, designed and evaluated based on same feed analysis, feed capacity, feed conditions, products, meteorological data, and unit life time. The recovery of NGLs in FGR unit (option-1) was based on sub cooling by means of an external refrigeration package, which dictated the need for hydrate inhibition in this case by means of methanol injection. On the other hand, the recovery of NGLs in FGR unit (option-2) depended on absorption principle thus additional equipment “i.e., Absorber & De-Hexanizer Towers and Solvent Make-up Tank” were required, which resulted in higher capital cost and higher fuel gas consumption leading to less sales gas production. xii Although FGR unit (option-1) included three feed compression stages to achieve the required pressure of 43.5 barg to allow for further processing, it required only one stage for sales gas export compression to achieve the required battery limit pressure of 100 barg. Alternatively, FGR unit (option-2) included only two feed compression stages to achieve the required pressure of 16.5 barg to allow for further processing; however it required two sales gas export compression stages to achieve the required battery limit pressure of 100 barg. In addition, FGR unit (option-1) had higher production of sales gas & LPG compared to FGR unit (option-2). The obtained results indicated that FGR unit (option-1) is more profitable than option-2, as option-1 has: • Lower capital cost of 1.42E+07 $ compared to 1.62E+07 $ for option-2. • Higher sales value of 7.50E+06 $/Year (due to higher sales gas & LPG yields) compared to 6.25E+06 $/Year for option-2. • Higher net present value (NPV) of 6.57E+06 $ compared to 1.12E+06 $ for option-2. • Higher internal rate of return (IRR) of 33.90% compared to 25.25% for option 2. • Less payback period of 6 years (3 years less) compared to 9 years for option 2. Thus, FGR unit (option-1), in which recovery of NGLs was achieved by sub cooling by means of an external refrigeration package, is the optimum process scheme as it has better economics reflected in higher net present value (NPV), higher internal rate of return (IRR) and less payback period.