The SWAP: A breakthrough in hydrogen sulfide processing," presented by CEO Wolf Koch, to Sulphur 2011 Conference & Exhibition, Houston, November 10, 2011.

1. Background 2
is
available
2
SWAPSOL
Corp
is
developing
commercial
pro- 2
S
will
S)
2
react
readily
with
oxygen
or
it
may
be
used
to
recover
hydrogen.
technologies.
The
most
basic
of
these
developments
2H2S
+
O2
==>
Sulfur
+
2H2O
3
is
the
relatively
low
temperature
catalytic
decomposi-
H2S
==>
H2
+
Sulfur
4
2 2
)
and
sulfur,
the
second
2
S
with
If
reaction
path
3
is
chosen,
the
analog
to
Reaction
2
2
O)
and
sulfur,
and
lastly
the
is
not
possible
since
the
presence
of
both
methane
2 and
oxygen
represent
a
potential
safety
hazard;
in
2
O,
sulfur
and
a
carbon-sulfur
polymer.
The
SWAP
- from
the
gas
stream
and
treated
in
a
separate
oxida-
2
S
to
below
detectable
-
and
Claus
tail
gas
cleanup.
A
related
process
allows
lent
processes
that
produce
water
and
sulfur.
for
the
destruction
of
waste
hydrocarbons
to
form
2 2
S
source
where
it
is
Carsul
formation
has
been
reported
in
the
literature
as
not
otherwise
available;
further
processing
allows
for
an
undesirable
solid
byproduct
in
the
conversion
of
the
production
of
hydrogen
and
sulfur
as
well
as
the
organic
sulfur
compounds.
We
have
also
found
refer-
recovery
of
sulfur
and
carbon-based
polymers
from
ences
to
carsul
formation
in
catalyst
vendor
literature
carsuls.
Process
applications
of
the
technology
were
as
the
result
of
temperature
excursions
during
the
reviewed
in
an
article
in
Hydrocarbon
Engineering
in
October
20101
and
in
the
proceedings
of
the
Gas- made
during
the
primary
SWAP
reaction
appear
to
be
Tech
Conference
in
March
20112.
During
the
last
year,
carbon
polymers
containing
an
equal
ratio
of
carbon
SWAPSOL
has
developed
detailed
process
designs
and
sulfur
molecules.
About
half
of
the
expected
sulfur
production
is
normally
found
in
the
carsuls.
Sulfur
may
be
recovered
by
heating
the
carsuls:
operational
advantages
to
implementing
the
SWAP.
Carsuls
+
heat
==>
Carbon
polymer
+
Sulfur
5
The
original
SWAP
reaction
can
proceed
spontane- An
additional
process
has
been
developed
for
the
ously
with
a
favorable
Gibbs
function: destruction
of
waste
hydrocarbons
with
hot
molten
2H2S
+
CO2
==>
Sulfur
+
2H2O
+
carsuls
1
sulfur:
Waste
HC
+
Sulfur
==>
H2S
+
Carsuls
+
Byproduct
6
The
reaction
is
somewhat
exothermic
and
proceeds
in
the
temperature
range
of
70-200°C
at
ambient
to
The
waste
hydrocarbon
may
consist
of
waste
plastics,
moderate
pressures.
The
reaction
rate
decreases
sig- biomass,
motor
oil,
etc.
SWAPSOL
has
experimented
with
PVC,
polystyrene,
waste
motor
oil,
linseed
oil,
gases
such
as
methane,
propane
or
other
constitu-
ents
of
natural
gas,
which
may
be
present
in
the
feed
depend
on
the
feed
material;
for
example,
PVC
de-
stream
into
a
SWAP
reactor,
will
not
react
over
the
struction
will
produce
hydrogen
chloride.
The
hydro-
catalyst,
making
the
SWAP
a
useful
technology
for
cleaning
sour
gases.
Methane
or
other
non-reactive
-
gases
will
pass
through
the
reactor
as
diluents:
tively,
hydrogen
and
sulfur
may
be
recovered
from
the
CH4
+
2H2S
+
CO2
==>
Sulfur
+
2H2O
+
carsuls
+
CH4
2 -
ered
from
the
carsuls
via
reaction
5.
Two
alternative
SWAP
reaction
paths
for
the
destruc-
1

2. During
the
last
two
years
we
have
met
with
several
was
assumed
to
be
3%
and
CO2
was
not
removed
potential
partners
and
have
learned
that
there
exists
2
S.
a
general
aversion
to
the
unknown:
we
have
been
told
many
times
that
there
is
a
limited
interest
in
the
In
order
to
have
a
valid
comparison
with
published
cost
data,
we
chose
identical
process
conditions
to
carbon
dioxide,
making
carsuls,
water
and
sulfur;
2
S
loading
of
5%
and
CO2
instead
our
domestic
discussion
partners
generally
at
3%
as
our
process
design
basis
for
a
commercial
prefer
Reaction
3,
the
reaction
path
with
air,
making
only
sulfur
and
water
as
products.
Early
this
year,
we
commissioned
a
detailed
process
design
and
cost
Cleaning
high-pressure
natural
gas
and
operat-
analysis
for
that
process
variant,
covering
a
design
ing
an
air
oxidation
scheme
presented
two
reasons
for
a
typical
sour
gas
well
and
one
for
cleaning
land- for
pre-separating
the
sour
components
from
the
gas
well.
The
amine
stripper-regenerator
section
is
recovery
technology
performed
the
design
and
esti- readily
available
commercial
technology.
The
strip-
mating
study.
We
will
be
performing
a
similar
detailed
per
tower
is
a
high-pressure
vessel,
while
the
amine
process
design
and
cost
study
of
the
hydrogen
from
regenerator
and
SWAP
reactor
operate
near
ambient
pressure,
at
a
level
to
maintain
water
as
a
liquid.
The
-
etary
catalyst,
which
is
based
on
a
naturally
occur-
The
recovery
of
hydrogen
and
sulfur
from
hydrogen
ring,
treated
mineral.
crude
oils,
any
sulfur
compounds
present
in
the
crude
we
considered
an
advanced
case
which
combines
the
amine
regenerator
and
SWAP
reactor
into
one
process
step.
Table
1
presents
a
cost
estimate
for
is
a
valuable
raw
material
generally
produced
on-site
both,
the
base
case
and
the
advanced
design.
Table
as
a
by-product
of
naphtha
reforming
or
via
steam
2
provides
comparative
cost
data
for
competing
reforming
of
natural
gas. sulfur
removal
processes
published
in
the
2004
US
4
SWAPSOL
has
developed
a
catalytic
process
for
sulfur
at
a
temperature
range
between
about
150
-
Base
Advanced
Case Case
450°C,
the
range
in
which
sulfur
exists
as
a
liquid.
The
process
is
endothermic
and
uses
ceramic
mem- Capital
Cost
(Million
$,
2008) 16.6 13.0
branes
to
continuously
remove
hydrogen
from
the
re-
Operating
Cost
($
per
1000
scf)
the
driving
force
across
the
membrane;
alternatively,
Variable
Cost
0.27 0.03
membrane
may
also
provide
the
necessary
driving
Direct
Costs
0.11 0.09
force.
The
ceramic
membrane
consists
of
tubular
ele-
ments,
making
process
scale
up
relatively
easy.
We
Overhead,
Taxes,
0.08 0.07
Insurance
are
currently
completing
the
design
and
construction
of
a
pilot
reactor
and
should
be
ready
for
pilot
plant
Cash
Cost 0.46 0.19
Sour
Gas
Cleanup 0.11 0.09
We
have
previously
reviewed
a
detailed
design
and
0.23 0.18
economic
analysis
of
a
sour
gas
cleanup
process
Capital)
based
on
SWAP
technology.3
Much
of
the
world’s
gas
reserves
are
sour;
estimates
indicate
that
up
to
Net
Treatment
Cost
ex
ROI 0.57 0.28
study
estimated
the
cost
of
removing
sulfur
from
gas
Net
Treatment
Cost
with
ROI 0.80 0.46
Basis:
40
Million
scf/day,
1000
psi,
5%
H2S
The
work
considered
a
variety
of
commercial
sulfur
2
S
concentra- Table
1:
Cost
Estimates
for
Sulfur
Recovery
-
2
level
2

3. Sweet gas Acid Gas (H2S + CO2)
Makeup
water
Rich Air Makeup
amine water
amine
Lean
Sour gas
Liquid Reboiler
Rich
amine
Lean
amine
Sulfur
recovery
Stripper Regenerator SWAP Reactor
Figure 1: Simplified Process Flow Diagram
Amine Stripper and SWAP Reactor
2004
Cost
($
per
1000
scf) Claus
process
requires
a
high
temperature
furnace
followed
by
several
high
temperature
reactor
stages
Amine
Stripper
–
Aqueous
Redox
1.73
and
a
tail
gas
cleanup
unit.
Other
processes
use
Amine
Stripper
–
Claus
+
Tail
Gas
1.40 liquid-phase
catalytic
oxidation
reactors
requiring
Cleanup catalyst
separation
technology.
The
SWAP
catalyst
CrystaSulf 1.46 is
not
adversely
affected
by
the
presence
of
CO2,
whereas
in
a
Claus
furnace,
the
presence
of
CO2
may
CrystaSulf
-
DO 0.90
Basis:
40
Million
scf/day,
1000
psi,
5%
H2S liquid-phase
catalyst
systems
may
have
adverse
Table
2:
Cost
Estimates
for
Competing
Sulfur
reactions
to
the
presence
of
CO2.
Recovery
Technology
We
have
recently
completed
a
process
design
and
It
should
be
noted
that
the
cost
estimate
for
the
SWAP
is
based
on
standard
estimating
procedures
employed
by
the
chemical
and
oil
industries
in
the
United
States.
Data
shown
from
the
USDOE
study
still
applicable
with
the
addition
of
a
blower/compres-
does
not
provide
a
detailed
breakdown
as
shown
for
sor
at
the
gas
inlet;
the
stripper
now
operates
at
near
the
SWAP;
it
may
not
be
based
on
similar
estimating
ambient
pressure.
Table
3
presents
the
cost
basis
for
techniques.
Without
a
breakdown
of
capital
and
di-
rect
operating
costs,
we
can
only
note
the
difference
S.
The
process
design
simula-
in
the
year
for
which
the
estimate
is
valid.
What
is
2
tions
show
that
the
process
equipment
sizing
is
de-
-
cant
cost
advantages
over
competing
processes,
S
content
by
multiples
especially
since
the
competing
cost
data
needs
to
2 2
requirements.
Analysis
of
the
design
details
reveals
that
some
equipment
is
oversized,
most
likely
caused
by
the
fact
that
commercial
estimating
routines
are
standard
-
the
Claus
process.
With
the
advanced
generally
developed
for
large-scale
plants
rather
than
SWAP
process,
the
potential
advantage
increases
to
70%.
In
addition,
there
are
several
major
operational
this
analysis,
cost
data
shown
in
Table
3
is
very
con-
servative
and
probably
overstated.
bed
reactor
is
well
known
in
the
industry
and
easily
controlled,
especially
at
relatively
low
temperatures
3

4. Base
Case
Laboratory
scale
development
of
the
various
SWAP-
Capital
Cost
(Million
$,
2008) 4.9
SOL
processes
is
nearing
completion,
and
the
company
is
scheduled
to
begin
pilot
plant
studies
Operating
Cost
($
per
1000
scf)
in
the
near
future.
Our
next
process
design
and
cost
2
S
pro-
Variable
Cost 0.08
Direct
Costs 0.28 reductions
compared
to
producing
hydrogen
via
the
Overhead,
Taxes,
Insurance 0.27 traditional
steam
reforming.
As
noted
above,
we
are
completing
the
design
and
construction
of
a
mem-
Cash
Cost 0.63 brane
hydrogen
reactor
by
year-end
and
hope
to
begin
pilot
plant
studies
early
next
year.
This
should
0.33
put
us
in
a
position
to
plan
for
a
commercial
applica-
0.67 application
of
a
SWAP
sour
gas
cleanup
process
is
Capital)
-
tion
with
existing
on-site
processes
will
be
needed.
Net
Treatment
Cost
ex
ROI 0.96
SWAPSOL
has
received
one
patent
on
its
processes
and
has
several
others
pending.
The
company
Net
Treatment
Cost
with
ROI 1.63 intends
to
enter
into
joint
venture
and/or
joint
devel-
Basis:
4
million
scf/day,
1%
H2S opment
partnerships
for
different
SWAP
applications
in
the
petroleum,
chemical
and
independent
natural
gas
processing
sectors.
The
SWAP
has
the
potential
energy
generation
industries,
and
may
reduce
pro-
-
tional
technologies.
not
found
a
comprehensive
study
analogous
to
the
deep
well
gas
design
case;
the
data
we
have
found
1
Koch,
W.,
et.al.,
A
Spontaneous
Swap,
Hydrocarbon
has
been
published
by
process
vendors
without
Engineering
the
details
necessary
for
a
reliable
comparison.
In
2
Koch,
W.,
et.al.,
,
Amster-
addition,
most
published
data
lists
the
processing
dam,
March
2011.
cost
per
ton
of
sulfur,
a
number
which
favors
high
sulfur
loading
cases
as
discussed
above.
We
have
3
Koch,
W.,
et.al.,
From
Mean
to
Clean,
Hydrocarbon
Engi-
located
an
installation
permit
application
for
a
land- neering
4
-
based
on
vendor
estimates.5
A
paper
presented
by
grading
Final
Report
2004.
gas
unit
in
Warren,
PA,
is
also
lacking
the
neces-
sary
details.6
When
we
add
costs
to
the
Merichem
5
estimate
for
the
usual
overheads
listed
in
Tables
1
Application
No.
1270-2
and
3
and
adjust
the
capital
requirements
for
2008,
pdf)
the
costs
shown
in
Table
3
are
similar
to
the
Warren
installation.
While
we
have
not
performed
a
detailed
6
J.
Carlton,
et.
al.,
T
Electricity
expect
reductions
in
costs
similar
to
what
is
shown
technical_papers/index.php)
in
Table
1.
Of
course,
all
the
additional
advantages
gas
treating. Sulphur
2011,
November
2011,
Houston
TX.
www.swapsol.com/business@swapsol.com
4