A STUDY ON SELECTION AND DESIGN OF NATURAL GAS

DEHYDRATION TECHNOLOGY

By
Mwita Ghati

TPG 4510: Specialization Project

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied

Geophysics
December 2013

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my NTNU supervisor,
Professor Jon Steinar Gudmundsson for the advices he gave me during the project. In
addition, He sent me many reference materials that enabled the success of this work. Also, I
acknowledge my supervisors from the University of Dar Es Salaam, Dr Ambrose Itika and
Dr. Isaac A. Legonda for their coordination and useful advices during the project.

My appreciation goes also to the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) for
accepting to give out their valuable information to compile this piece of work. In a special
way, I thank Mr. Sultan Pwaga who works at TPDC; he is a masters graduate from NTNU in
2011 in Natural Gas Technology. He has assisted me with Hysys simulations and advised me
throughout the project phase.

Overall, I thank the creator of the universe for His mercies, love and wonderful plans He has
for me in my life. I acknowledge my Parents (Mr. and Mrs. Jackson Mwita Meremo) and my
siblings for their respective contributions to my life. Finally, special thanks go to the
Norwegian government for sponsoring the EnPE / NORAD program that has given me an
opportunity to pursue with my masters studies.

Abstract
The project focused on comparing, selecting and designing the dehydration process. Different
dehydration methods were compared and Triethylene Glycol (TEG) process was chosen to be
the best due to its absorption capacity, low cost of operation and low energy consumption.
The design of TEG dehydration process was done by Hysys software using Songo Songo
natural gas composition, a gas field in Tanzania.
Hysys simulations were carried out following AspenHysys guidelines and the important
parameters for the design of TEG were analysed. The amount of water vapour to be removed
from the Songo Songo gas composition was estimated to be 6.67x 10-5 mole fraction and
glycol circulation rate (GCR) of 22.30 L of TEG / kg of absorbed H2O was required to
remove that amount of water. This corresponds to the absorption capacity of 98.2 % and it
was the best-simulated results suitable for the design of TEG dehydration processes.
Sensitivity analysis was done by varying the dehydration parameters to optimize the designed
process. Conclusion from sensitivity analysis shows that, lower inlet temperature increased
the dehydration capacity and lower theoretical stages of column required higher GCR to
reach equilibrium. In addition, presence of sour gases in the inlet gas hindered the absorption
capacity and installing scrubber improved the dehydration capacity.
Further Hysys simulations are required to assess the effect of the reboiler temperature on the
absorption capacity. In addition, stripping gas should be added in the regeneration column to
increase the percent purity from 99% to 99.95% in order to reduce the GCR and minimize the
glycol emissions to the environment.

ii

Contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................ii
Contents ................................................................................................................................... iii
Tables ......................................................................................................................................... v
Figures....................................................................................................................................... vi
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................ vi
1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1

Project Objective ......................................................................................................... 2

1.2

Methodology ............................................................................................................... 2

Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 3

2.1

Natural Gas .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.1

Natural Gas Exploration and Discoveries in Tanzania ........................................ 3

2.1.2

Natural Gas Development in Tanzania ................................................................ 4

2.1.3

New Transportation Pipeline to Dar es Salaam ................................................... 6

2.2

Natural Gas Dehydration Methods .............................................................................. 8

2.2.1

Absorption............................................................................................................ 8

2.2.2

Adsorption.......................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3

Condensation Process ........................................................................................ 12

2.2.4

Membrane Separation ........................................................................................ 13

2.3

Combination of the dehydration methods ................................................................. 14

2.4

Comparison and Selection of Dehydration Methods ................................................ 14

2.5

Dehydration by TEG ................................................................................................. 17

2.5.1

Description of TEG Dehydration Processs ........................................................ 17

2.5.2

Parameters Affecting TEG Performance ........................................................... 19

2.5.3

Dangerous Emissions from TEG Systems ......................................................... 19

2.6

Factors to Consider for Design of TEG Dehydration Process .................................. 22

iii

2.7

2.7.1

Songo Songo Gas Treatment ............................................................................. 28

2.7.2

Methods to Determine Water Content ............................................................... 29

2.7.3

Current Dehydration Methods ........................................................................... 30

Hysys Simulation .............................................................................................................. 32

3.1

Introduction to Hysys Simulation ............................................................................. 32

3.1.1

TEG- Water Equilibrium ................................................................................... 32

3.1.2

Important Parameters in Hysys Simulation ....................................................... 32

3.1.3

Analytical Approach for Calculating Theoretical Stages .................................. 33

3.1.4

Input for Hysys Simulation ................................................................................ 34

3.2
4

Case Study in Songo Songo Gas Field ...................................................................... 28

Hysys Simulation Procedures ................................................................................... 35

Hysys Simulation Results and Discussions ...................................................................... 37

4.1

Absorption Process .................................................................................................... 37

4.2

Effects of Scrubber on the Absorption Capacity....................................................... 38

4.3

TEG-Water Equilibrium Data ................................................................................. 39

4.4

Regeneration.............................................................................................................. 40

4.5

Theoretical Stages for the TEG Absorption Process ................................................. 42

4.6

Sensitivity Analysis of TEG System ......................................................................... 43

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 47

Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 48

Reference .......................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 53

iv

Tables
Table 2.1: Properties of Common Glycol .................................................................................. 9
Table 2.2: Economics on Minimizing of BTEX and VOCs .................................................... 10
Table 2.3: Comparison of the Physical Properties of Desiccants ............................................ 11
Table 2.4: Effects of Gycol Selection TEG Dehydration Process ........................................... 20
Table 2.5: Process Optimization to Reduce BTEX Emissions ................................................ 21
Table 2.6: Operating Conditions of Packed Colum TEG Dehydration Process ...................... 22
Table 2.7: Feed Composition and Design Parameters of Hysys simuation ............................ 24
Table 2.8: Songo Songo Gas Field Design Specifications ...................................................... 28
Table 3.1: Songo Songo Gas Specification.............................................................................. 34
Table 3.2: Lean TEG Specification ........................................................................................ 34
Table 3.3: Contactor Specifications ......................................................................................... 34
Table 3.4: Regenerator Specifications ..................................................................................... 34
Table 4.1: Summary of the Parameters for the Designed TEG Dehydration Process ............. 41
Table 8.1: Gas Composition for Songo Songo Gas Field ........................................................ 54
Table 8.2: TEG-Water Equilibrium Data................................................................................. 56
Table 8.3: Absorption Process for Two Theoretical Stages .................................................... 57
Table 8.4: Absorption Process for Three Theoretical Stages .................................................. 58
Table 8.5: Absorption Process for Four Theoretical Stages .................................................... 59
Table 8.6: Absorption Process for Five Theoretical Stages ..................................................... 60
Table 8.7: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 15oC...................................................................... 61
Table 8.8: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 30 oC on Absorption Capacity .............................. 62
Table 8.9: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 35 oC on Absorption Capacity ............................. 62
Table 8.10: Effects of 0% of H2S on the Absorption Capacity ............................................... 63
Table 8.11: Effects of 15 % H2S on the Absorption Capacity ................................................. 63
Table 8.12: Effects of 30% H2S on the Absorption Capacity .................................................. 64
Table 8.13: Effects of 0 % of CO2 on the Absorption Capacity .............................................. 64
Table 8.14: Effects of 15% CO2on the Absorption on Capacity ............................................. 65
Table 8.15: Effects of 30% CO2 on the Absorption Capacity .................................................. 65

Figures
Figure 2.1: Summary of Natural Gas Discoveries in Tanzania ................................................. 3
Figure 2.2: Current Pipeline Routes........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.3: Natural Gas Distribution Network in Dar Es Salaam .............................................. 5
Figure 2.4: Gas Pipeline from Mnazi Bay to Mtwara ................................................................ 6
Figure 2.5: New Natural GAS Transportation Pipeline Route .................................................. 7
Figure 2.6: Comparison of Reboiler Duty for Various Glycols................................................. 9
Figure 2.7: Comparison of BTEX Emissions and Glycol Losses ............................................ 10
Figure 2.8: Dehydration by Adsorption ................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.9: Hollow Fibre Membrane ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.10: Combination of Dehyration Methods .................................................................. 14
Figure 2.11: Selection of Dehydration Method ....................................................................... 15
Figure 2.12: Energy Consumption for Dehydration Methods ................................................. 16
Figure 2.13: Glycol Dehydration Process ................................................................................ 17
Figure 2.14: Hysys Simulation of TEG Dehydration Process ................................................. 23
Figure 2.15: Effects of Theoretical Stages and Inlet Gas Temperature ................................... 25
Figure 2.16: Effects of Reboiler Temperature and Theoretical Stages .................................... 26
Figure 2.17: Effects of Sour Gases on the Capacity of Water Remove ................................... 26
Figure 2.18: Effects of Stripping Gas Circulation Rate ........................................................... 27
Figure 2.19 :Songo Songo Process Flow Diagram .................................................................. 29
Figure 2.20: Hysys Simulation to Determine Water Content of Songo Songo ...................... 30
Figure 2.21: Joule Thomson Dew Point Control Process ........................................................ 31
Figure 3.1: Component Selection Window .............................................................................. 35
Figure 3.2: Converged Window of the Absorber..................................................................... 36
Figure 3.3: Converged Windows for Regeneration Unit ......................................................... 36
Figure 4.1: Hysys Simulation of Absorption Process with a Scrubber.................................... 37
Figure 4.2: Hysys Simulation for Process without Scrubber ................................................... 38
Figure 4.3: TEG Water Equilibrium Process ........................................................................... 39
Figure 4.4: Equilibrium Data for Obtaining Absorption Factor (Constant, k) ........................ 40
Figure 4.5: The Designed TEG Dehydration Process .............................................................. 41
Figure 4.6: Effects of Theoretical Stages on Absorption Capacity ......................................... 43
Figure 4.7: Effects of Theoretical Stages on the Capacity of Water Removed ....................... 44
Figure 4.8: Effects of Inlet Gas Temperature on Capacity of Water Removed ....................... 45
Figure 4.9: Effects of H2S on Capacity of Water Removed .................................................... 46
Figure 4.10: Effects of CO2 on the Capacity of Water Removed ............................................ 46
Figure 8.1:Joule Thomson System with Hydrate Inhibitor...................................................... 53
Figure 8.2: Solubility of CO2 in Lean TEG ............................................................................. 53
Figure 8.3: Solubility of H2S in Lean TEG.............................................................................. 54
Figure 8.4: Hysys All Streams during the Absorption Process with Scrubber ....................... 55
Figure 8.5: Hysys Streams during Absorption Process with Installing Scrubber .................... 55
Figure 8.6: Streams to Obtain Equilibrium Data of TEG and Water ....................................... 55
Figure 8.7: Composition to Obtain the Equilibrium Data of TEG and Water ......................... 55
Figure 8.8: Hysys Condition for the Designed TEG Dehydration Process ............................. 56
Figure 8.9: Effects of Theoretical Stages on the Capacity of Water Removed in kg/ hr ......... 61

vi

BTEX

Nomenclature
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene

BCF

Billion Standard Cubic Feet

BCM

Billion Standard Cubic Meter

CAPEX

Capital Expense

oC

Degree Celsius

Degree Fahrenheit

Tdew

Dew point Temperature

DEG

Diethylene Glycol

GPSA

Gas Processors Suppliers Association

GCR

Glycol Circulation Rate

kPa

Kilo Pascal

LPG

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas

MMSCF/D

Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day

MEG

Monoethlene Glycol

NGL

Natural Gas Liquid

Ppmw

Parts Per Million by Mass

Ppmv

Parts Per Million by Volume

1b

Pound Mass

Std

Standard

TPDC

Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation

TREG

Tetra ethylene Glycol

TEG

Triethylene Glycol

TCF

Trilion Cubic Meter

Tpy

Tons Per Year

VOCs

Volatile Organic Compounds

Wt

Weight

vii

Introduction

Natural gas contains many contaminants and the common impurity is water. During the production,
changes in pressure and temperature will make natural gas to be near water saturation and that water
should be removed to avoid problems. Dehydration of natural gas is the removal of the water that is
associated with natural gas. The natural gas industry has recommended the dehydration process to
ensure smooth operation in the gas transmission lines (Guo and Ghalambork, 2005).

Removal of water from the natural gas reduces the potential for corrosion, gas hydrate formation and
freezing in the pipeline. When gases are not dehydrated, liquid water may condense in pipelines and
accumulate at low points along the line and hence reducing its flow capacity. Water is removed to
meet a water dew point requirement of a sale gas specification range from 32.8 to 117 kg/106 std m3
(Gandhidasan, 2003).

A widely accepted way to determine the amount of water content present in the natural gas is by use
of charts. The charts show the quantity of water vapour that natural gas has at saturation, under
various conditions of pressure and temperature. When the temperature of the gas is increased, the
gas contains more water; this is because water vapour pressure increases (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006).

(Gudmundsson, 2009) and (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006) report varieties of ways for dehydration of
natural gas. These include absorption, adsorption, condensation methods and membrane separation
method. However, the method commonly used in the petroleum industry is the use of liquid
desiccants such as glycols in the absorption process. Glycol readily mixes with water and has a
lower vapor pressure than water. Thus, wet gas comes into contact with glycol and water moisture in
the gas is absorbed by the glycol. The glycol and water mixture is heated to drive off the water. The
dry or anhydrous glycol is re-circulated.

An important factor influencing the choice of the process is the water dew point requirements. When
the temperature of saturated natural gas is lowered, some of the water vapour condenses. If the
temperature is low enough the condensed water vapour can combine with certain hydrocarbons such
as H2S and CO2 to form solids known as hydrates. Hydrates have a cage like structures that can exist
at the temperatures above the freezing point of water (Guo and Ghalambork , 2005).

Gas hydrates will form when free water is present and conditions are favourable for hydrate,
although in some cold gas conditions hydrates can form even without free water. Once formed these
hydrates can agglomerate and plug pipelines. Therefore, gas pipelines usually require that most of
the water vapour be removed from the gas, down to water content lower than the saturation water
content at the lowest expected pipeline temperature (Guo and Ghalambork , 2005).
1.1

Project Objective

The main objective of the project was to select the best dehydration method and design the
dehydration process using Hysys software. The specific objectives are:
a) Review of methods used in natural gas dehydration,
b) Developing criteria for comparison of dehydration capacity,
c) Selection of a suitable method for analysis of dehydration capacity,
d) Applying Hysys software to design the suitable method using gas composition from the Songo
Songo gas field, a Field located in Tanzania.
1.2

Methodology

The approach of the project was based on literature review of natural gas dehydration technologies.
Information from internet, books, thesis and journals were used during the literature review. In
addition, interacting with experts on dehydration process and consultation on issues regarding the
dehydration process was also carried out.

From the reviews of literature, the best method was selected depending to its dehydration capacity,
cost of operation and energy consumption. After the selection of the best method, the design of the
dehydration process was done by Hysys software using a case study on Songo Songo gas fields.

Songo Songo gas field is located in Tanzania and its information were obtained from the Tanzania
Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) in Dar Es Salaam. I visited TPDC more often during
the project execution for gathering information and consultations. The information on natural gas
exploration, discoveries and development in Tanzania are presented in this report in section 2.

Literature Review

2.1

Natural Gas

Natural gas is a mixture of many components that can be grouped into 3 major groups: hydrocarbons
containing hydrogen and carbon, inert elements and trace compounds. For many years, natural gas
have been so useful. The Chinese discovered many years ago that the energy in natural gas could
used to heat water. In the early days of the natural gas industry, the gas was mainly used to light
street lamps, and the occasional house (Sing, 2012).
2.1.1

Natural Gas Exploration and Discoveries in Tanzania

Tanzania has a large potential of unexplored inland, offshore and deep-sea sedimentary basins,
which could justify the presence of oil and natural gas. Currently, five onshore gas discoveries have
been made including the following: (i) Songo Songo in Lindi Region (1974) .This is under
exploitation for power generation and industrial uses in Dar es Salaam. (ii) Mnazi Bay in Mtwara
region (1982) -it is under development of power generation. (iii) Mkuranga in the Coast region
(2007), (iv) Kiliwani-North (Nyuni) in the Lindi region (2008) and (v) Ntorya in Mtwara region
(2012).
In addition, there are significant discoveries in offshore (Deep sea) in block 1 (2011), block 2
(2012), Block 3 (2012) and block 4 (2010). Gas reserves as of 2013 are estimated to 8 TCF
(227BCM) onshore and about 35.1 TCF (994BCM) deep seas (TPDC, 2013a). The summary of
discoveries is presented in figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Summary of Natural Gas Discoveries in Tanzania (TPDC, 2013a)

2.1.2

Natural Gas Development in Tanzania

Although Tanzania has many discoveries, only two fields have been developed namely Songo
Songo and Mnazi Bay discoveries.
Songo Songo Field Development
The Songo Songo gas development project came on stream on 21st July 2004 for the provision of
natural gas to Ubungo Power Plant and Wazo Hill Cement Plant all located in Dar Es Salaam.
Marketing of natural gas is governed by two agreements, the Gas Agreement and the Production
Sharing Agreement (TPDC, 2003).
A pipeline to transmit and transport natural gas to the market area in Dar Es Salaam has been
constructed as shown in figure 2.2 belo. .This comprises of a 12-inch diameter submarine pipeline
from the Songo Songo to Somanga Funga on the Tanzania mainland. From Somanga Funga to Dar
Es Salam there is pipeline of 16-inch diameter covering the distance of 25 km. It is capable of
transporting 105mmscfd (3x 106 std m3/d) of natural gas from Somanga Funga to Ubungo, Dar Es
Salaam. Another pipeline of 8-inch diameter with a distance of 16km transports the natural gas from
Ubungo to the Wazo Hill cement factory (TPDC, 2012).

Figure 2.2: Current Pipeline Routes (TPDC, 2012)

There are thirty-six industries which have been connected to the Dar Es Salaam natural gas pipeline
network. The industrial average utilization of natural gas is around 15 mmscfd (424, 752.70 std
m3/d). The pipeline network connection from Ubungo to the main gas pipeline at Gongolamboto
has been completed thereby increasing the capacity of the network from 5 mmscfd (1.41x 105 std
m3/d) to 10 mmscfd (2.83 x105 std m3/d). The map in figure 2.3 below shows the power plants and
industries currently connected to the natural gas network (TPDC, 2012).

Current Power customers

1. Ubungo Turbines (UGT 1-6)
2. Wartsilla Ubungo
3.Wartisila Tegeta
4.Tanesco Jacobsen
Industrial customers
1. Wazo Hill Cement Plant
2. Tanzania Brew. Ltd
3. Kioo Ltd
4. Alaf Group
5. Bora Tanzania Ltd
6. Karibu Textiles
7. Chinese Textiles
8. Nida Textiles
9. Mukwano Industries
10. Tanzania Cigarette Co.
11. Murzha 1
12. Murzha 2
13. Murzha 3
14. METL
15. Nampack
16. Yuasa Batteries
17. Serengeti
18. Namera
19. Simba Plastic
20. Simba Steel
21. Ok Plast
22. Pepsi
23. VOT
24. Azam Bakery
25. Kamal Steel
26. Tanzania Cutleries
27. Steel Masters
28. Bakresa Food Product
29. Tanpack Tissues
30. Bauteck 1
31. MMI 1
32. MMI 2
33. Iron & Steel
34. Bauteck 2
35. Said Salim Bakhresa
36. Soap and Allied Industries Limited
Institutions Customers
1. Serena (Movenpick)
2. Keko Prison
3. Mgulani Baracks

Figure 2.3: Natural Gas Distribution Network in Dar Es Salaam (TPDC, 2012)

Mnazi Bay Gas Field Development

The Mnazi Bay gas development started operation in December 2006. The project includes
production of power of about 30MW for 20 years to meet the power demand for Mtwara and Lindi
regions. The current installed plant generating capacity is 18MW and it generates about 12 MW
where about 2 mmscfd (57x103 std m3/ d) of natural gas is used (TPDC,2012).
The development included the construction of 8-inch pipeline to transport natural gas from the
Mnazi Bay to Mtwara. Gas pipeline from Mnazi Bay is presented in figure 2.4 below.

Figure 2.4: Gas Pipeline from Mnazi Bay to Mtwara (TPDC, 2012)

2.1.3

New Transportation Pipeline to Dar es Salaam

To ensure reliable and affordable energy that meets the existing and projected growth in demand in
Tanzania. The Government of Tanzania (GoT) through TPDC is constructing a natural gas
processing plants at Songo Songo and Mtwara (Madimba Village) and natural gas transportation
pipeline from Mtwara (Madimba Village) and Songo Songo via Samanga fungu to Dar es Salaam.
The project is aiming to bring to the market natural gas discovered at Songo Songo, Nyuni, Mnazi
Bay, Msimbati, Mkuranga, Ntorya, deep sea and any new discoveries potential for the new
infrastructure (TPDC, 2013b).
6

The two Processing plants at Songo Songo and Mtwara (Madimba Village) will start with a capacity
of 140 mmscfd (4x106 std m3/ d) and 210 mmscfd (6x106 std m3/d) expandable respectively. The
construction of new pipelines will include a 25km 24-inch marine section from the Songo Songo to
Somanga Fungu, a 487 km 36-inch from Mtwara (Madimba Village) to Dar es Salaam (Kinyerezi)
and 30km 16-inch from Kinyerezi to Tegeta Dar Es Salaam. Upon completion, the pipeline
infrastructure will have a capacity to transport up to 784 mmscfd (22 x106 std m3/ d) of natural gas.
The project is expected to be in operation by January 2015. Figure 2.5 below shows new project
routes for pipeline construction (TPDC, 2013b).

Figure 2.5: New Natural GAS Transportation Pipeline Route (TPDC, 2013b)

2.2

Natural Gas Dehydration Methods

Dehydration of natural gas is to remove water that is associated with natural gases. The natural gas
industry has recommended the dehydration process to prevent problems in the transmission lines.
When gases are not dehydrated, liquid water may condense in pipelines and accumulate at low
points along the line reducing its flow capacity (Netuil and Ditl 2012).
Several methods have been developed to dehydrate natural gas in the industry. The major methods of
dehydration are absorption, adsorption, and condensation process and membrane separation. For
commercial dehydration purpose, the dehydration methods should have high absorption efficiency,
flexibility during operation and should be economical suitable (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006)
2.2.1

Absorption

In dehydration by absorption, a liquid with strong affinity for water removes water. Water levels in
natural gas can be reduced to the 10-pmmv range. In a physical absorption process, the gas is
contacted with a liquid that absorbs the water vapor (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006).

Many liquids possess the ability to absorb water from gas, the liquid that is most desirable to use for
commercial dehydration purposes should possess the following properties (Khan et al., 2012):

Strong affinity for water

Low cost

Non corrosive

Low affinity for hydrocarbons and acid gases

Thermal stability

Easy regeneration

Low viscosity

Low vapor pressure at the contact temperature

Low tendency to foam

The liquids preferred in the dehydration processes are glycols and the common glycols are MEG,
EG, DEG, TEG and TREG. Glycols are preferred because they satisfy the above criteria to varying
degrees. Water and the glycols show complete mutual solubility in the liquid phase due to hydrogenoxygen bonds, their water vapor pressures are very low (Khan et al., 2012) and other properties of
glycols are presented in table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Properties of Common Glycol (Perry and Green, 2007)

Name

TEG

TREG

MEG

DEG

C6H14O4

C5H18O5

C2H6O2

C4H10O3

Molar mass[kg/kmol]

150.17

194.23

62.07

106.12

Normal boiling point[oC]

288.0

329.7

197.1

245.3

Vapor pressure@25oC[pa]

0.05

0.007

12.24

0.27

Density @25oC[kg/m3]

1122

1122

1110

1115

Viscosity @25oC[cp]

36.73

42.71

17.71

30.21

204
240

224
240

163

177
240

Formula

Maximum recommended
Regeneration temperature[oC]
Onset of decomposition [oC]

(Ebeling et al., 1998) on their case 2a, they used glycol unit with special BTEX striper and case 2b
they used standard glycol unit to study performance of glycols. The case studies are presented in
figure 2.6 and figure 2.7 below. Reboiler duties for EG and DEG are lower when compared with
TEG as illustrated in figure 2.6 below. This will result in lower utility cost and will be advantage to
obtain sufficient absorption capacity.

Figure 2.6: Comparison of Reboiler Duty for Various Glycols (Ebeling et al., 1998)
EG, has a lower BTEX emission compared with TEG but has significantly higher glycol losses than
TEG as illustrated in figure 2.7 below.

Figure 2.7: Comparison of BTEX Emissions and Glycol Losses (Ebeling et al., 1998)
(EPA, 2007) present a study on how to minimize BTEX and VOC emission by taking care of the
effect of capital cost , the payback period and the amount of emissions savings in table 2.2 below.
Therefore, TEG glycol is the best-preferred glycol in the absorption process due to its high
dehydration capacity and BTEX and VOC problems have solution as stated by (EPA, 2007).In
addition, section 2.5.3 of this report discusses into details methods used to measure the glycol
emission and suggests methods to minimize the emission.
Table 2.2: Economics on Minimizing of BTEX and VOCs (EPA, 2007)

Where :Gas price of $7/Mcf

10

2.2.2

Adsorption

The second dehydration method is adsorption of water by a solid desiccant. During the adsorption
process, water is absorbed on a mole sieve, on a silica gel or on alumina.This solid desiccant have
different physical properties to enable the efficiency of adsorption process. A comparison of the
physical properties of each desiccant is shown in table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3: Comparison of the Physical Properties of Desiccants (Netuil and Ditl, 2012)
Properties
Specific area[m2/g]
Pore volume [cm3/g]
Pore diameter[A]
Design capacity[kgH2O/100kg
desiccant]
Density[kg/m3]
Heat capacity [J/kg/oC]
Regeneration temperature [oC]
Heat of desorption [J]

Silica gel
750-830
0.4-0.45
22
7-9

Alumina
210
0.21
26
4-7

Mol sieves
650-800
0.27
4-5
9-12

721
920
230
3256

800-880
240
240
4183

690-720
200
290
3718

During the adsorption process,the amount of adsorbed water molecules increases with the pressure
of the gas and decreases with its temperature. It is important to account the effect of partial pressure
and temperature during the process design.In the adsorption process colums work periodically and
a minimum of two bed systems are used. During the operation, one bed dries the gas while the other
is being regenerated. Regeneration is performed by preheated gas, or by part of the dehydrated
natural gas, as shown in figure 2.8 below (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006).

Figure 2.8: Dehydration by Adsorption (Netuil and Ditl, 2012)

11

2.2.3

Condensation Process

The third dehydration method employs gas cooling to turn water vapour molecules in the liquid
phase and then remove them from the stream. In many cases, it does not remove enough water from
the gas hence used in combination with the other dehydration methods. The process can be grouped
into two methods depending on their process of cooling: direct cooling and indirect cooling (Guo
and Ghalambork, 2005).

During the direct cooling process, the excess water in the vapor state becomes liquid are removed
from the cooling system .Cooling is always done with other dehydration methods such as use of
glycols. Glycol may be added into the gas stream in the heat exchanger to lower temperatures before
expanding into a low temperature separator (Guo and Ghalambork, 2005).

Indirect cooling process, a pressure drop is achieved when Joule-Thomson valve is used and during
the process of refrigeration, condensed water is removed from the system (TPDC, 2003).Two basic
methods for Joule-Thomson operation are Joule-Thompson without hydrate inhibitor and JouleThompson with hydrate inhibitor. Joule Thompson with hydrate inhibitor has advantage against
Joule Thompson without hydrate inhibitor. Because of its ability to provide lower dew points during
dehydration the process.

The most commonly used inhibitors are glycols and alcohols, a typical system is shown in figure 8.1
in the appendix. The inhibitor is injected between the inlet high-pressure separator and the
regenerative heat exchanger. The inhibitor mixes with free water for cooling and prevents hydrate
formation.

12

2.2.4

Membrane Separation

The final method of natural gas dehydration discussed in this report dehydrates the gas by
permeation. The wet natural gas is passed through a membrane, which traps particles of water and
impurities on its surface as shown in figure 2.9 below.

Industrial applications of dehydration by membrane separation are currently very limited and many
studies have been done to determine the potential of the membrane separation process. The findings
prove that, membrane separation is economical and more compact and it is important for offshore
production ( Rojey et al., 1997).

Figure 2.9: Hollow Fibre Membrane (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006)

The permeability of the membrane determines the effectiveness of the separation. The membrane
should be permeable with the contaminant and it must be relatively impermeable with methane.
Membrane separation processes require large membrane areas, which are expressed in thousands of
square meters. The gas permeating through the membrane should be dependent to the membrane
surface. Therefore, compact permeation modules with a high membrane area are needed.

13

2.3

Combination of the dehydration methods

In a processing plant, more than one dehydration method may be applicable. This is to ensure
maximum dew points are met in order to prevent problems during transport and processing. Two or
three methods of dehydration can be used together. Combination of absorption, cooling and
adsorption processes are present in figure 2.10 below.

Figure 2.10: Combination of Dehyration Methods (Frde ,2008)

2.4

Comparison and Selection of Dehydration Methods

The comparison of the dehydration methods is important to have the method that fits the appropriate
dehydration process. Comparisons are made based on the dew points requirement, energy
consumptions, cost, and safety and environmental standards (Reid et al., 1990).
The selection of the dehydration method depends on the dew point requirement and the application
of the dehydration method. This is because not all dehydration methods can provide high depression
capability and not all applications are requiring high dew point depressions (Reid et al., 1990).
Absorption by TEG is the most widely used method in the petroleum industry to dehydrate the
natural gas for pipeline transportation. Tdew of - 10C is reached and this water content is sufficient
for pipeline distribution of natural gas (Netuil and Ditl, 2012). By improving reboiler design the
Tdew is 2 to 3 times lower (Netuil and Ditl, 2012). However, TEG has high emissions of BTEX and
VOC leading to environmental problems when used (Tioluwanimi Odunow, 2006).

14

Adsorption dehydration can achieve very low water content Tdew < - 50C and is best applied where
very low dew point are required, for instance in LNG plants. It is environmental friendly because
natural gas is not mixed with high hydrocarbons and impurities. In addition, even corrosion of the
equipment occurs at a slower rate. Suitable areas for application of the natural gas dehydration
methods are shown in figure 2.11 below.

Figure 2.11: Selection of Dehydration Method (Netuil and Dit1, 2012)

The disadvantage of adsorption is that it requires high capital investment and has high space
requirements. Since, it runs with at least two columns and industrial experience indicates that the
capital cost for an adsorption line is 2 to 3 times higher than when absorption is used (Netuil and
Ditl, 2012).
In addition, adsorption process consumes more power compared to absorption process. (Netuil and
Dit1, 2011) present the study case in figure 2.12 below. The composition of the total energy demand
of the adsorption method can be divided into three parts: The heat for water desorption, warming the
adsorbent and the column is approximately 55%, 31% and 14%, respectively (Netuil and Dit1,
2011).

15

Condensation methods are most suitable in cases where a high-pressure difference is available.
However, the difference decreases during the withdrawal period and becomes insufficient, so that an
external cooling cycle is needed. A cycle for regenerating hydrate inhibitor from the condensate
separated inside the flashes is also required (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006).

Figure 2.12: Energy Consumption for Dehydration Methods (Netuil and Dit1, 2011)

From the discussions above, TEG absorption process is selected because the application of the
method is for pipeline use and the process can achieve the required dew point. Another advantage of
selecting TEG dehydration over other dehydration methods is due to its cost effectiveness, best
dehydration capacity and low energy consumption shown in the above discussions.

16

2.5

Dehydration by TEG

TEG has gained universal acceptance as the most cost effective choice in the dehydration
process.TEG is easily regenerated to a concentration of 98-99.95% in an atmospheric stripper
because of its high boiling point and decomposition temperature. Vaporization temperature losses
are lower than EG or DEG. In addition, Capital and operating cost are lower compared to other
glycol (Guo and Ghalambork, 2005).
2.5.1

Description of TEG Dehydration Processs

TEG-dehydration process can be divided into two major parts, gas dehydration
and solvent regeneration ( Manning and Thompson,1991). In dehydration, water is removed from the
gas using TEG and in the regeneration; water is removed from TEG, before it can be back to the
absorption column. TEG-dehydration unit contains absorption column, flash tank, heat exchangers,
inlet scrubber and regenerator (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006) as shown in figure 2.13 below.

Figure 2.13: Glycol Dehydration Process (Christensen, 2009)

During the process, lean TEG enters the absorption column at the top side while the rich solvent is
collected at the bottom of the column and will be sent to the regenerator. Wet gas enters to the
absorption column after passed through inlet scrubber. The scrubber removes free liquid and liquid
droplets in the gas, both water and hydrocarbons. Removing liquid in the scrubber decrease the
amount of water that has to be removed in the absorption column. In addition, this decreases the size
of the column and therefore decrease the TEG needed in process (Manning and Thompson,1991).

Heat exchanger is used for cooling of wet gas before enter to scrubber. Rich TEG passes through a
coil, which acts as reflux at the top of the absorption column; to increase its temperature. A three
phase flash tank is used for removal of absorbed acidic gases and hydrocarbons in TEG before rich
17

solvent enter to the regenerator that is a distillation column. Rich TEG is preheated in another heat
exchanger before it fed to the regeneration section. At the end of the process cycle, the regenerated
TEG will cool in the heat exchanger and will be back to the dehydration column for reuse (Manning
and Thompson,1991).

Glycol purities up to 99.9 wt % can be achieved by using a stripping column after the regenerator.
The stripping gas from the top of the stripping column is routed to the regenerator boiler. Stripping
gas is usually nitrogen, dry gas or flash gas from the flash separator. The water can be removed from
the stripping gas by cooling it well below water dew point. If hydrocarbon rich gas has used the gas
from the regenerator must be dried or used as a process gas (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006).

Filters are only necessary if there is a problem with solid particles or liquid hydrocarbons in the
glycol. Solid particles in the glycol accumulate with time leading to the increase of wear of the
equipment and can create plugs in heat exchangers. These solid particles can be easily removed with
sock filters, which can be made of cloth fabrics, paper or fibre glass. Liquid hydrocarbons like
condensate and BTEX can be removed from the glycol by activated carbon (Manning and
Thompson,1991). Section 5.3 will discuss the effect of BTEXs and other plant emissions to the
environment.

TEG tank is an optional unit that ensures a constant glycol flow to the contactor column. Due to loss
of glycol in the dehydration system, a storage tank can act as a buffer to prevent insufficient glycol
flow and be used to measure the glycol contents in the system (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006). In the
simulation part of section eight and nine, glycol storage tank, filters and the stripping column will be
neglected during the Hysys simulation.

Because of pressure difference between the regenerator and the contactor, the glycol pressure pump
is needs to increase pressure. This is done with the glycol regeneration pump. The glycol is cooled
below 80 C before pumping to protect the pump .

18

2.5.2

Parameters Affecting TEG Performance

Presence of CO2 in the natural gas results of foaming problems that will result in the increase of
glycol losses. For normal operation without foam 13 L /106 Sm3 is estimated to be losses due to
carryover. Other losses are 0.05 7 L/ 106 Sm3 and 40 L/ 106 Sm3 for high pressure and low
temperature dehydration processes respectively (GPSA, 2004).
When the dehydration process operates at high pressure with the inlet sour gas stream, the glycol
losses can be much higher because glycol is more soluble in dense CO2 than in natural gas. The
solubility of the acid gases in the lean TEG as a function of temperature and partial pressure is
presented in figures 8.2 and 8.3 in the appendix. If the content of sour gases in natural gas is high,
they should be removed from the natural gas before TEG dehydration process. However, if the
content is low, they can be dried with glycol solutions if appropriate anticorrosion is ensured (Guo
and Ghalambork, 2005).
In addition, the presence of oxygen reacts with the glycols to form corrosive acidic compounds and
the products increase the potential for foaming and glycol carryover. To prevent entrance of oxygen
during TEG dehydration, a dry natural gas blanket is often put over the storage and surge tanks to
minimize air intrusion (GPSA, 2004).
2.5.3

Dangerous Emissions from TEG Systems

The emissions from the TEG system should be quantified from an environmental and safety
standpoint. In the contactor, TEG can absorb significant amounts of aromatic components in the gas.
These aromatic (BTEXs) are often released to the atmosphere at the regenerator. These emissions
are generally small on a mass basis; they have received a great deal of attention from state regulatory
agencies. Consequently, gas producers and processors are increasingly sensitive to this issue when
designing or operating TEG systems (Hubbard et al.,991).

Effects of VOCs and BTEXs

BTEXs are dangerous to health and the environment. Benzene is carcinogenic and Toluene may
affect the reproductive and central nervous systems. Ethylbenzene and xylene may have respiratory
and neurological effects. Therefore, the release of BTEXs should be controlled. The allowable
release depends on the local rules and regulations and in some part of the world it is 25 tpy for total
pollutants (Ebling, 1999).

19

Methods to Estimate and Minimize the Emissions

Many methods are used to estimate the aromatic emissions from TEG dehydrators: indirect methods,
convectional and non-convection methods. Based on both simplicity and cost effectiveness, the
indirect estimation methods are the obvious methods of choice. Conventional and non-conventional
stack measurements are both manpower and analytical extensive (Grizzle and Oryx ,1993).
Selecting a different glycol such as DEG or EG may play a major role in emission reduction. DEG
and EG have the added benefit of absorbing the least BTEX, less cost than TEG and requires less
energy for regeneration. A report by (Ebeling, 1999) has shown that EG and DEG has considerably
less affinity for VOCs than TEG.
For example, a GCR of 3gal/lb water, the VOC emission for a TEG system is 20-30 times higher
than the EG. Similarly, for BTEX emissions it is 5-10 times higher in the TEG system than EG.
However, they have the disadvantage that they are less stable at higher regenerator temperature and
glycol losses are higher compared to TEG see in table 2.4 below (Ebeling, 1999).
Table 2.4: Effects of Gycol Selection TEG Dehydration Process (Salamat, 2012)
Parameter
Stripping gas rate
BTEX emissions
Glycol losses
Reboiler temperature
Reboiler duty

EG
High(3 XTEG )
Very low
Very high( 40 x TEG)
Intermediate
Intermediate

DEG
Intermediate
Intermediate
Low
Intermediate
Low

TEG
Very low
High ( 5 xEG
Very low
High
High (25% EG)

Flaring will help BTEX destruction through combustion and improved emission dispersion by
elevating the point source emission, which reduces ground level concentration. Incineration at a
temperature of 730 OC can almost completely destroy BTEX and eliminate hydrocarbon odors.
However, this option may not be viable since it is not consistent with international trends in the
industry (Grizzle and Oryx ,1993).
Adding a condensation unit to the regenerator vent stream to recovery BTEX and VOCs is an
economical and easy to operate. The condense liquids are then collected for further treatment or
disposal. From an environmental standpoint it creates the problem of disposal of the water phase
containing the BTEX compounds (Grizzle and Oryx ,1993).

20

Changes in operating conditions of the GCR and flash tank can result in a significant reduction in
BTEX emissions. The flashed gas generated from the flash tank must be incinerated or used as fuel
gas since it contains significant VOCs. In addition, decreasing absorber pressure and increasing
absorber temperature tends to decrease VOCs emissions. Although reducing absorber pressure may
not be feasible due to the cost of sales gas re-compression (Grizzle and Oryx ,1993).
Radian Corporation and the Gas Research Institute have developed a software program called GRIDEHY for estimating emissions of BTEX and other VOCs from TEG dehydration units (Thompson
et al., 1993). Process optimization and the amount of BTEX emitted are shown in table 2.5 below for
different case studies done by GRI-DEHY software.
Table 2.5: Process Optimization to Reduce BTEX Emissions (Thompson et al., 1993)

Size (MMSCF/d)
Temperature (oF)
Pressure (psig)
Glycol Circulation
Rate(gph)
BTEX
Concentration Inlet
(wet) Gas:
Benzene (ppm)
Toluene (ppm
Ethylbenzene (ppm)
Xylenes (ppm)
Total BTEX (ppm)

Case 1
Producti
on
1.2
94
770
18

Case 2
Production

Case 3
Production

Case 4
Production

Case 5
Production

2.2
100
660
16

2.3
82
945
54

12.7
86
975
63

40
100
950
494

Case 6
Gas
Plant
58
95
950
601

38
59
5
81
183

43
220
10
168
441

219
332
25
315
891

134
244
38
113
529

590
681
24
254
1549

590
681
24
254
1549

21

2.6

Factors to Consider for Design of TEG Dehydration Process

(Kidnay and Parrish, 2006) have discussed parameters to consider while designing TEG dehydration

process. They have listed the parameters namely; gas flow rates, compositions, inlet pressures and
temperatures, and the required degree of dehydration. These parameters vary widely; therefore, they
have provided useful guidelines for a typical TEG dehydration table 2.6 below.

Table 2.6: Operating Conditions of Packed Colum TEG Dehydration Process (Kidnay and
Parrish, 2006)

(i and Selst , 2002) at Hyprotech 2000, presented two papers about simulation of glycol
dehydration on 13th to 14th may 2002 in GPA Europes meeting in Bergen. The simulation glycol
flow sheet included important units such as a pre-cooler, a pre-scrubber, contactor, flash tank, flash
valve, regenerator, glycol pump and the heat exchangers. The design parameters are similar with the
operating range presented in table 2.6 by (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006). An example of a Hysys
simulation of TEG process is presented in figure 2.14 below.

22

Figure 2.14: Hysys Simulation of TEG Dehydration Process (i and Selst, 2002)
(i and Selst, 2002) used a dehydration case from the North Sea with 36500 kmol/h natural gas at
8550 kPa and temperature 26 C and the water specification in dried gas was less than 37 ppm as
feed in figure 2.14 above. In the simulation calculation, the regeneration pressure was set to 110 kPa
(slight overpressure) and the reboiler temperature was set to 204 C. The glycol circulation rate was
set to 24 kg TEG / kg absorbed water. Which resulted in a glycol purity of 98.9 weight %. The water
concentration in the dried gas was calculated to 58 ppm, which was far from the specified 37 ppm.

They are not recommending to increase the reboiler temperature, because the glycol will degenerate
above temperature of 204 C. In addition, they are saying it is not accepted to operate the
regeneration column below atmospheric pressure because oxygen leakage into the system can cause
an explosion hazard.

Also, their finding shows that increasing the number of theoretical stages will only reduce the water
content slightly. They conclude that, regeneration by traditional distillation will only achieve about
one weight % water in regenerated glycol, and the water specification in the dried gas will not be
achieved.

23

(Kazemi and Hamidi, 2011) have recommended parameters for design and optimization of a TEGdehydration unit. The following parameter must be considered in the TEG dehydration system:
theoretical stages in absorption column, GCR, reboiler temperature and regenerator pressure. Among
mentioned parameters, the first three of them are changeable.

In addition, some parameters such as temperature of the inlet gas to column are effective on water
content of outlet gas. In their work, a TEG-dehydration plant was simulated using Aspen-Hysys
software. Their simulation case used feed composition and design parameters presented in table 2.7
below.

Table 2.7: Feed Composition and Design Parameters of Hysys simuation (Kazemi and Hamidi,
2011)
Composition
Mol %
H2S
11.9
CO2
7.234
N2
1.6
H2O
0.865
Methane
59.29
Ethane
8.555
Regeneration pressure
Absorption pressure

Composition
Propane
i-Butane
n-Butane
i-Pentane
n-Pentane
= 1.3 bar
= 65.6 bara

Mole %
14.254
0.7851
1.708
0.912
1.6

Composition
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane
n-Decane

Inlet gas temperature

Rich TEG flash pressure

Mole %
0.741
0.403
0.117
0.032
0.007

= 36 oC
= 3.013 bar

Results from the Hysys simulation indicated that, increasing the theoretical stages leads to the
equilibrium with water content of wet gas and inlet TEG to the absorption column at low GCR. As
shown in figure 2.15 below, for four and three theoretical stages, TEG circulation rates were 18 kg
of TEG/ kg of water absorbed and 20 kg of TEG/ kg of water absorbed respectively. Hence, they
conclude that, for two theoretical stages higher TEG circulation rates are necessary to reach
equilibrium.

In addition, they give effects of temperature in figure 2.15.Temperature of 36 C, 40 C and 44 C;

temperature of 36 C gave higher absorption capacity compared to other temperatures. Therefore,
they conclude that, when high gas inlet temperature is used, it will increase of the water content in
the outlet gas and will require high GCR.

24

Figure 2.15: Effects of Theoretical Stages and Inlet Gas Temperature (Kazemi and Hamidi,
2011)
(Kazemi and Hamidi, 2011) simulated another case to investigate the effect of reboiler temperature
and theoretica stages on the absorption capacity; the results are presented in figure 2.16 below. In
reboiler temperature of 195C and 204C, three and four theoretical stages are sufficient to reach
96% absorption capacity.

At reboiler temperature of 204 C, GCR were 12 kg of TEG/ kg of absorbed water and 20 kg of

TEG/ kg of absorbed water for four and three theoretical stages respectively. Furthermore, at reboiler
temperature of 195 C, the GCR of 14 of kg TEG/ kg of absorbed water for four and at least 25 of kg
TEG/ kg of absorbed water for three theoretical stages were needed.

In addition, they investigated the effect of inlet acid gas on the capacity of water removed and the
results are presented in figuren 2.17 below. It was found that, H2S was found to be more efficient
than CO2.Hence, when an inlet gas has high amount of sour gases they should be removed before the
dehydration process to prevent problems that will affect the capacity of water removed.

25

Figure 2.16: Effects of Reboiler Temperature and Theoretical Stages (Kazemi and Hamidi,
2011)

Figure 2.17: Effects of Sour Gases on the Capacity of Water Remove (Kazemi and Hamidi,
2011)

26

(Kazemi and Hamidi, 2011) recommends that, when lower dew point is require stripping gas and
TEG with purity of 99.9 %wt should be used. Increasing the reboiler temperature is not sufficient,
because TEG can degrade in temperatures above 204 C. To effectiveness use of stripping gas for
increase of dehydration capacity, it should be contact to TEG in a short tower when TEG leaved
reboiler. Effects of stripping gas on dehydration capacity are shown in figure 2.18 below.

Operating without striping gas, gives lower water removal efficiency compared to when a stripping
gas was used. Use few amount of stripping gas; about 50 std m3 / Kg TEG lead to large difference in
amount of removed water. However, the effect of higher rate of stripping gas more than100 std m3/
Kg TEG) is negligible. Hence they conclude that, amount of stripping gas should be well decided
since higher amount of stripping gas does not give large difference in amount of water remove

Figure 2.18: Effects of Stripping Gas Circulation Rate (Kazemi and Hamidi, 2011)
In the literature review presented above, most of the informations are important in the design of the
TEG system. Therefore, the application of the literature review will be done in section eight and nine
of this report when dealing with the design of TEG dehydration system by using Hysys software.

27

2.7

Case Study in Songo Songo Gas Field

Songo Songo gas field is located in the South-Eastern Coastal belt of Tanzania in Kilwa district of
Lindi region. Drilling activities started between 1977 and 1981 and were completed in mid 1990s.
The Initial gas in place was estimated to be 25 BCM. Natural gas reservoir has an estimated
recoverable and proven gas reserve of 15 BCM (Fuko and Kisamo, 2006).

There are currently two onshore wells (SS3 & SS4) and three offshore, shallow reef wells (SS5, SS7
and SS9). The wells were first put in production in 2004 and the current operator is Pan African
(TPDC, 2003). Songo Songo design specification is presented in table 2.8 below and table 13.1 in
the appendix presents Songo Songo gas composition.

Table 2.8: Songo Songo Gas Field Design Specifications (TPDC, 2003)
Conditions
Gas flow rate
Hydrocarbon and Water dew point
Delivery pressure
Flow line temperature
Reservoir pressure

Specification
70 MMSCF/D ( 2.0x106 sm3 /day)
-12 oC @ 8170 kPa
8,700kPa
80 oC
17,250kPa (g)

Natural gas to be transported by pipelines from Songo Songo gas field to Dar es Salaam, must meet
pipeline specifications. Therefore, Songo Songo processing plant is located at the Islands of Songo
Songo to ensure that the desired specifications are achieved.
2.7.1

Songo Songo Gas Treatment

The gas plant on the Songo Songo Island consists of common inlet facilities, sales gas metering,
liquid handling, flaring facilities and a two train processing facility. The gas plant is designed to
handle 70 mmscfd ( 2.0x106 std m3 /day) of gas with a dew point of 12C at 8,170 kPa and a
delivery pressure of 8,700 kPa maximum (TPDC, 2003). The well fluids from the three offshore
wells and two onshore wells are transported in three individual 6-inch and two individual 4-inch
buried respectively to inlet manifold as presented in figure 2.19 below.

28

Figure 2.19 :Songo Songo Process Flow Diagram (:TPDC, 2009)

2.7.2

Methods to Determine Water Content

Determination of saturated water content of natural gas is essential to estimate the operating
conditions of gas dehydration process in order to stay within the non-hydrate formation zone. There
are standard approaches used to determine the water content of natural gas. These approaches have
complex problems about thermodynamics (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006). However, (Smith et al., 2001)
and (Prausnitz et al., 1999) have given detailed discussions of phase equilibrium calculations in
many thermodynamics texts. Examples of methods to determine water content are use of empirical
or semi empirical correlations, use of charts and thermodynamic models. In this report, Hysys
simulator was used to estimate Songo Songo water content.

A simple case was made with the use of Aspen Hysys and is presented in figure 2.20 below. Natural
gas was mixed with enough water by use of a mixer and the separation of two phases in the separator
occurred. The water content above the saturation level was taken away as liquid from the bottom
part of the separator and saturated gas was taken from the top of the separator as saturated gas.

29

Figure 2.20: Hysys Simulation to Determine Water Content of Songo Songo

The estimated water content by Hysys was 6.67x 10 -5 mole fractions of water at reservoir pressure
of 17,250 kPa and temperature of 173oF (78.3 oC) . For dew point conditions of 8,170 kPa and
temperature of 10oF (-12oC) the value estimated was 7.9 x 10-5 of mole fractions of water. Hence, the
amount of water to be dehydrated from Songo Songo gas field was found to be 6.67x 10-5 mole
fraction.
2.7.3

Current Dehydration Methods

Songo Songo gas field utilizes an indirect method of Joule Thomson (JT) valve technology with
hydrate inhibitor to control water and hydrocarbon dew points. The simple process of JT is presented
in the figure 2.21 below and meaning of the streams is presented below. JT process uses a control
valve to reduce the pressure from 173 bars to 85 bars and the expansion is adiabatic (TPDC 2009).

A hydrate inhibitor (MEG) is often injected upstream of the heat exchanger. Through the process of
pressure drop and refrigeration effect across the valve, the condensation of water vapor occurs and
the liquid is extracted from the gas as condensate, glycol and water and the lean gas is transported by
pipeline to customers in Dar Es Salaam (TPDC, 2009).

30

Figure 2.21: Joule Thomson Dew Point Control Process

1-2 Gas-gas heat exchanger

2-3 Suction drum
3-4 Valve expander
4-5 Dewpoint separator
5-6 Gas-gas heat exchanger

The JT process has very little in the requirements for maintenance and operation. It is able to handle
turn down to 50% without added CAPEX and does not require operating consumables. The process
is commercially proven and the required technology is open book. It uses also 100% available
pressure drop and does not require external energy (TPDC, 2009).

31

Hysys Simulation

3.1

Introduction to Hysys Simulation

The version of Hysys used for the process simulations in this report is Hysys 7.2. Thermodynamic
packages available in Hysys include a glycol package specially designed for TEG dehydration.
Besides the Glycol package, Peng-Robinson is the recommended EOS simulation of TEG
dehydration (AspenHysys, 2004a).
3.1.1 TEG- Water Equilibrium
(Bestani, 1989) have numerous reports on phase equilibrium data between TEG-water and natural
gas. However, there are severe discrepancies in the reported equilibrium values and the computing
methods are very complicated.
For accuracy purposes, graphical (McCabe-Thiel) solution of absorption drying process can be used
to obtain data describing the equilibrium between TEG- water and natural gas. In this project similar
case with that of (Polk, 2009) is being created in Hysys to obtain TEG-water equilibrium.
3.1.2

Important Parameters in Hysys Simulation

GCR and the amount of water absorbed from the gas are the most parameters defining the design of
the TEG system. By use of data from Hysys simulation, these parameters can be calculated.
Equation 1 to 3 below provides how to calculate GCR and the amount of water content absorbed
from the wet gas.
GCR=

qTEG

equation 1

MH2O

Where:
The GCR= glycol circulation rate of TEG (L TEG/kg H20 absorbed)
qTEG = volume flow rate of TEG
m (H2O) = mass flow of absorbed water

qTEG =

mTEG

equation 2

TEG

Where;
TEG = mass density of TEG
mTEG = mass flow rate of TEG
m (H2O)= m (H2O)in m(H2O)out

equation 3

32

Where;
m(H2O)in= flow rate of water in the inlet stream of gas
m(H2O)out= flow rate of water in the outlet stream of the gas

3.1.3

Analytical Approach for Calculating Theoretical Stages

There are many approaches to determine the number of theoretical stages required during the
absorption process. This report uses analytical solution reported by (Gudmundsson, 2009) the
Kremser Brown equation to calculate the theoretical stages required for the design of TEG process.

The equation is presented below and simulation results from Hysys will be used as inputs for the
equations in section 4.5 to calculate the theoretical stages required in the absorber column.
N=ln {

yN+1 yo
y1 yo

1 A + A}

1
ln A

equation 4

Where:
N= number of the theoretical stages
yN+1= molar fraction of the water in the inlet gas stream
y1= Molar fraction of water in outlet gas stream
yo= Molar fraction of water in the vapor phase in equilibrium with yo= k.xo
xo= Molar fraction of water in inlet TEG stream
A=G LX k

equation 5

The value A = effective absorption factor

Where:
L=Molar flow of liquid phase entering in the column
G=Molar flow of gaseous phase entering in the column
k = Represents the equilibrium

33

3.1.4

Input for Hysys Simulation

To design TEG system, this project uses specifications from the Songo Songo gas field and other
specifications from literature discussed in section 2.6. The specifications consist of the gas flow,
temperature and pressure of the wet gas and the required purity of the lean glycol. Inputs in the
Hysys simulator are presented in table 3.1, table 3.2, table 3.3 and table 3.4 below. The literature
review presented in section 2.6 by (Kidnay and Parrish, 2006) was used to generate table 3.2, 3.3 and
table 3.4 below.

Table 3.1: Songo Songo Gas Specification (TPDC, 2003)

Gas inflow Specification
Flow rate
Temperature
Pressure

Value
70MMscf/d ( 2.0x106 sm3 /day)
80 C
81.70 bars

Table 3.2: Lean TEG Specification

TEG Specification
Lean TEG temperature
Lean TEG pressure
Lean purity

Values
35C
1.2 bars
99 weight%

Table 3.3: Contactor Specifications

Contactor Specifications
Pressure
Gas temperature
Glycol Temperature
Number of trays (equilibrium stages)

Values
81.70 bara
30 C
35 C
3

Table 3.4: Regenerator Specifications

Regenerator Specifications
Reboiler pressure
Condenser Pressure
Reboiler temperature
Condenser temperature
Number of trays ( equilibrium stages)

Values
1.2 bara
1.2 bara
204C
98.9C
5

34

3.2

Hysys Simulation Procedures

A base case was established using steps from (AspenHysys, 2004a) .The first step was to select the
appropriate fluid package and Peng- Robinson fluid package was chosen. After selecting the fluid
package basis, different components were entered in the Hysys component selection widow as
shown in figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Component Selection Window

The Hysys specifications discussed in section 3.1.2 were entered into the simulation environment.
Following Hysys tutorials presented by (AspenHysys, 2004b) absorber column was simulated and
converged and the window results is presented in the figure 3.2 below. Similar procedures presented
by (AspenHysys, 2004a) for the regeneration part was followed and the converged window for the
regeneration column is presented in figure 3.3 below.

35

Figure 3.2: Converged Window of the Absorber

Figure 3.3: Converged Windows for Regeneration Unit

36

4
4.1

Hysys Simulation Results and Discussions

Absorption Process

The absorber designed from Hysys simulation presented in figure 4.1 below. The inlet temperature
of the gas entering the absorber was high compared to the required temperature in the absorber.
Therefore, the natural gas was cooled from 80o C to 30oC by a cooler and the liquids removed in the
scrubber.

Absorber simulated is similar with the absorber simulated by (i and Selst, 2002) discussed in
literature review. Although, the parameters used during simulation were different with the case of
(i and Selst, 2002) because of different gas compositions and design parameters but still similar
concepts of absorber design was realized.

Figure 4.1: Hysys Simulation of Absorption Process with a Scrubber

GCR for the absorption process was calculated by using equations in section 3.1.2 and results are
presented in table 8.4 in the appendix. The mass flow rate of lean TEG entering the contactor was
varied from 200 to 2400 kg/h. Common GCR of 25 L of TEG/ kg of absorbed H2O required mass
flow rate of 1250 kg/h of lean TEG to obtain the required water content (7.9 x 10-5 of mole
fractions of water in the dry gas).

37

In addition, 1100kg/h of lean TEG also obtained the required water content (7.9 x 10-5 of mole
fractions of water in the dry gas). Therefore, the designed TEG dehydration process prefers to use
lower GCR (22.3 L of TEG/ kg of absorbed H2O) in order to minimize BTEX and VOCs to the
environment. All stream conditions during the absorption process when scrubber was installed
before the absorber column is presented in figure 8.4 in the appendix.

4.2

Effects of Scrubber on the Absorption Capacity

To establish the effect of the scrubber on the absorption capacity during the absorption process,
Hysys simulated case is presented in figure 4.2 below. Section 2.5.1 discussed the benefits of
installing a scrubber before the absorption column; Hysys simulations also have confirmed those
benefits.
For instance, to achieve common GCR of 25 L of TEG/ kg of absorbed H2O, 2800 kg/h of lean TEG
is required when a case was simulated without a scrubber see in figure 8.5 in the appendix. The mass
flow of TEG with a scrubber was 1250 kg/h as presented in figure 8.4 in the appendix. Hence using
a scrubber reduces the mass flow of TEG, GCR and increases the absorption capacity of the
absorption process.

Figure 4.2: Hysys Simulation for Process without Scrubber

38

4.3

TEG-Water Equilibrium Data

A simple case was simulated in Hysys to obtain equilibrium data for TEG-water and natural gas in
figure 4.3 below. Water content in the lean TEG was varied from 0.01 to 0.46 mole fractions of
water and the simulated example case for 0.01mole fraction of water is presented in figure 8.7 in the
appendix

Figure 4.3: TEG Water Equilibrium Process

At 0.01 mole of water and 0.99 mole of TEG gave a vapor phase of 0.000135 mole fraction and
liquid phase of 0.216203 mole fraction .Other data from 0.02 to 0.46 mole fraction of water are
presented in table 8.2 in the appendix. Figure 8.6 in the shows also the conditions for the streams for
the simulation case of TEG water equilibrium in the case of 0.01-mole fraction of water.

Figure 4.4 below is obtained from data in table 8.2 in the appendix; the trend line gives an
equilibrium of 0.000430.This value will be used in section 4.5 to calculate the theoretical stages for
the TEG system design.

39

Figure 4.4: Equilibrium Data for Obtaining Absorption Factor (Constant, k)

4.4

Regeneration

The regenerator is a column with five theoretical stages plus a condenser and a boiler and the
temperatures given for the boiler and condenser are 204 C and 98.9 C respectively. TEG
temperature and pressure in the regeneration column differs from the contacting column.

The Lean TEG pressure from the regeneration has 1.2 bars and contactor pressure of 81.70 bars is
required. The pump is used to raise the pressure from 1.2 to 81.70 bars and during this process; the
temperature is reduced from 35oC to 30oC.

The final Hysys design for the TEG dehydration process is illustrated in the figure 9.5 below and
figure 13.8 in the appendix presents the conditions for all streams. In additional parameters of the
desined TEG dehyration process is also presented in table

40

Figure 4.5: The Designed TEG Dehydration Process

Table 4.1: Summary of the Parameters for the Designed TEG Dehydration Process
Gas inflow specification
Flow rate
Temperature
Pressure

Value
70mmscf/d ( 2.0x106 sm3 /day)
80 C
81.70 bars

TEG Specification
Lean TEG temperature
Lean TEG pressure
Lean purity
Mass flow rate
GCR (Glycol Circulation Rate)

35C
1.2 bars
99 weight%
1100 kg/hr
2 2.3 L of TEG/ kg of absorbed H2O

Contactor Specifications
Pressure
Gas temperature
Glycol Temperature
Equilibrium stages

81.70 bara
15 C
35 C
3

Regenerator Specifications
Reboiler pressure
Condenser Pressure
Reboiler temperature
Condenser temperature
Equilibrium stages

1.2 bara
1.2 bara
204C
98.9C
5
41

4.5

Theoretical Stages for the TEG Absorption Process

Using equation 4 and equation 5 from section 3.1.3 and Hysys simulation results the number of
theoretical stages for the absorption process can be estimated. During the Hysys simulations, TEG
mass flow rate of 1100 kg/h provides the required water dew (7.9 x 10-5 mole fractions) as estimated
with Hysys in section 2.7.2.
Hence, this TEG mass flow rate is used to estimate the equilibrium stages in the absorption column
and the values below are results from Hysys simulations
yN+1= 0.000712 mole fraction
y1= 0.000013 mole fractions
xo= 0.01 mole fractions
yo = 0.0000043 mole fractions
k ( equilibrium) = 0.00043 mole fraction, the value was obtained from an equilibrium data graph
presented in the figure 4.4
L= 7.390 kg mole /h
G=3486kgmole/h

7.390
A=3486 0.00043 = 4.93002

0.0007120.0000043

N=ln {0.0000130.0000043 1 4.93002 + 4.93002} 4.93002=2.6171

N= 3 theoretical stages

From analytical approach for calculating the theoretical stages, the designed TEG dehydration
process required three theoretical stages. This requirement was concluded also from Hysys
simulations. The results showed that, the best case was when three theoretical stages was used to
obtained an absorption capacity of 98.2 %.

42

4.6

Sensitivity Analysis of TEG System

Sensitivity analysis was done by varying the dehydration parameters to optimize the designed
process. The effect of number of theoretical stages on the absorption capacity is presented in figure
4.6 below. Increasing the number of equilibrium stages will require low GCR to reach the
equilibrium of wet gas in the absorption column.

As shown in figure 4.6, for five and four equilibrium stages, requires 12 and 14.20 L of TEG /kg of
absorbed H2O respectively to obtain an absorption capacity of 98%. Three and two equilibrium
stages required 20.32 and 46.71 L of TEG / kg of absorbed H2O respectively to reach the same
absorption capacity. It is clear that for two equilibrium stages higher GCR is needed to reach
equilibrium and the same conclusion is drown by (Kazemi and Hamidi, 2011) during the literature
review discussions.

Figure 4.6: Effects of Theoretical Stages on Absorption Capacity

GCR used in gas dehydration industry ranges from 17 to 42 L of TEG /kg of absorbed H2O and the
common GCR of 25 L of TEG / kg of absorbed H2O is used. From figure 4.7 below shows that, by
using GCR of 25 L of TEG/ kg of absorbed H2O theoretical stage of three, four and five achieved
43

absorption capacity above 98%, which corresponds to the required water content in Songo Songo
gas composition (7.9 x 10-5 of mole fractions of water). For economic reasons, three theoretical
stages is chosen to be the best because it is less expensive to install and operate than theoretical
stages of five and four.

Percentage of water absorbed Against GCR

100.0

Amount of Water Removed, %

97.5
95.0
92.5
90.0
87.5

N=4 Stages
N =3 Stages
N = 2 Stages
N = 5 Stages

85.0

82.5
80.0
77.5
75.0
72.5
70.0
67.5
65.0
6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

Glycol Circulation Rate (GCR),Litre of TEG/Kg of H2O

Figure 4.7: Effects of Theoretical Stages on the Capacity of Water Removed

Effects of inlet temperature to the absorption capacity are presented in table 8.7, 8.8 and table 8.9 in
the appendix for inlet temperature 15 oC, 30 oC and 35 oC respectively. The inlet temperature of 15
o

C provided high absorption capacity compared to an inlet temperature of the 30 oC and 35 oC and it

requires low GCR to reach the equilibrium as shown in figure 4.8 below.
For instance, to reach an absorption capacity of 98 % inlet temperature of 15 oC, 30 oC and 35 oC
required GCR of 5, 20.4 and 35 L of TEG / kg of absorbed H2O respectively. Lower GCR are
required when gas inlet temperature is low and by this, emissions to environment is minimized.
Therefore, for this design inlet temperature of 15 oC was the best temperature for the absorption
process than the inlet temperature of 30 oC used during the simulation process.

44

Figure 4.8: Effects of Inlet Gas Temperature on Capacity of Water Removed

Acid gas water content is a very complex subject as discussed in section 2.5.2. Both H2S and CO2
contain more water at saturation than sweet gas mixtures. Figure 4.9 and figure 4.10 below presents
the effect of H2S and CO2 on the absorption capacity respectively.
The effect increases with increase with sour gas concentration in the inlet gas. It is clear that H2S
content is more effective than CO2 on dehydration and similar conclusion is drown by (Kazemi and
Hamidi, 2011) in section 2.6. The difference in absorption capacity for H2S is shown in table 8.10,
8.11 and table 8.12 in the appendix. Absorption capacity for effects of CO2 is presented in table8.13,
8.14 and table 8.15 in the appendix.

45

Figure 4.9: Effects of H2S on Capacity of Water Removed

Figure 4.10: Effects of CO2 on the Capacity of Water Removed

46

Conclusion

This report concludes that, natural gas dehydration method consists of ; absorption, adsorption,
condensation and membrane separation. The criteria for selecting the dehydration method to use,
depends on the dew point requirements and the dehydration capacity. TEG dehydration method was
chosen to be the best because it can provide the desired dehydration capacity, low cost of operation
and low energy consumption.
TEG dehydration method designed by Hysys required GCR of 22.30 L of TEG /kg of absorbed H2O
and TEG mass flow rate of 1100 kg/ hr to meet the required Songo Songo water content of 7.9 x 10-5
of mole fractions of water. This corresponds to absorption capacity of 98.2 % and it was found that,
three theoretical stages in the absorption column was the best for design.
Findings from sensitivity analysis showed that, the number of equilibrium stage affects the capacity
of absorption. Also, It is important to cool the gas to lower gas inlet temperatures because the
absorption capacity increases during the absorption process. In addition, presence of sour gases in
natural gas lowers the absorption capacity; hence, the gas should be sweetened if handling sour
gases. Finally, installing scrubber before the contactor reduces the GCR required leading to
minimizing the glycol emissions to the environment and improving the dehydration capacity.

47

Recommendation

Further work on Hysys simulation is required to investigate the performance of the reboiler
temperature on the absorption capacity. In addition, Hysys simulation is required to investigate the
effect of stripping gas on the absorption capacity and if it can improve, the percentage purity of lean
TEG from 99% to 99.95%.This is to reduce the glycol circulation rate required in the absorption
process to minimize the emission of BTEX and VOCs to the environment.

48

Reference

AspenHysys. Simulation Basis,2004a. Retrieved from:

http://www.ualberta.ca/CMENG/che312/F06ChE416/HysysDocs/AspenHYSYSSimulationBasis.pdf
on 07th August 2013
AspenHysys. Tutorial and Application, 2004b. Retrieved from:
http://archivos.labcontrol.cl/HYSYS_DOCUS/TutAppsHY3.pdf on 7th August 2013
Bestani, B and Shing, K., S. Infinite-Dilution Activity Coefficient of Water in TEG,PEG,Glycerol and
their Mixtures in the Temperature Range of 50-140 oC, 1989. Vol. 50: Fluid Phase Equilib.
Christensen, Dan Laudal. Gas Dehydration:Thermodynamic Simulation of the Water/ Glycol
Mixture,2009. K10, Aalborg University Esbjerg .Retrieved from
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/17059482/Gas_Dehydration.pdf on 6th July 2013
Ebeling ,H.O. Reduce Emissions from Dehydration Units, 107-116: Hydrocarbon Processing ,1999.
Retrieved from: https://getinfo.de/app/Reduce-emissions-from-dehydration-units-Otherglycols/id/BLSE%3ARN060880773 on 20th August 2013
Ebeling, HAROLD O Lyddon, LILI, G. Covington and KIMBERLY, K.
Reduce emissions and operating costs with appropriate glycol selection, 1998.
Retrievedfrom:http://bre.com/portals/0/technicalarticles/Reduce%20Emissions%20and%20Operat
ing%20Costs%20with%20Appropriate%20Glycol%20Selection.pdf on 25th November 2013
EPA. Dehydration Natural Gas, Lessons Learned from the Natural Gas STAR Program. 2007.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and the Domestic Petroleum Council, Producers Technology
Transfer Workshop College Station, Texas May 17, 2007. Retrieved from
http://epa.gov/gasstar/documents/workshops/vernal-2010/02_dehydration.pdf on 10th December
201
Fuko, Dismas,A and Kisamo Joyce . Natural Gas Markets and Investment Opportunities in Tanzania,
2006. Presentation to the Parliament, Dodoma June 2006.
Gandhidasan, P. Parametric Analysis of Natural Gas Dehydration by Triethylene Glycol Solution,
2003. Energy Sources 25: 189-201.
Gas Processors Suppliers Association (GPSA). GPSA Engineering Data Book, 2004. 12th edition .
Grizzle, P.I and Oryx Energy Co. Hydrocarbon Emission Estimates and Controls for
Natural Gas Glycol Dehydration Units,1993. Retrived from:
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=0901476280078231&itemS
ocietyCode=SPE on 24th October 2013
49

Gudmundsson ,J. S. Prosessering av Petroleum,Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied

Geophysics,Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 122-141, 2009. Retrieved
from:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/prosessering/kompendium/KompendiumApril2009
.pdf on 20th September 2013
Guo, B and Ghalambork, A. Natural Gas Engineering Handbook, 2005. Gilp Publishing
Company,ISBN 0-9785113-3-9
Hubbard. A.A ., John M Campbells & Co. Recent Developments in Gas Dehydration and Hydrate
Inhibition, 1991.
John ,S.Smart, III and Randy Roberts. Possible Glycol Corrosion in Nominally Dry Gas Pipelines
, 2006. Retrieved from:
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=090147648000885d&it
emSocietyCode=NACE on 20th August 2013
Kidnay ,Arthur.J and Parrish William .R. Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing,
2006.Houston,Taxas,Gulf Publishing Company,ISBN 0-88415-220-0
Khan, Mohd Atiqueuzzaman, ASM Maruf and Ardi, Septian Sumi Hudiyono. Optimizing
Effective Absorption during Wet Natural Gas Dehydration by Tri Ethylene Glycol,2012. OSR
Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSRJAC) .ISSN: 2278-5736 Volume 2, Issue 2 (Sep-Oct. 2012),
PP 01-06 Retrieved from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jac/papers/vol2-issue2/A0220106.pdf
on 10th December 2013
Manning, F.S and Thompson,R.E. Oilfield Processing of Petroleum, 1991. 1st edition, Vol. 1
Pennwell Publishing Company.
Netuil, Michal and Ditl Pavel. Natural Gas Dehydration, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/36624/InTech-Natural_gas_dehydration.pdf on 24th
November 2013
Netusil, Michal., Dit1 Pavel. Comparison of Three Methods for Natural gas Dehydration, 2011.
Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 20(2011) 471-476. Retrieved from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/162029680/Comparison-of-Three-Methods-for-Natural-GasDehydration on 8th August 2013
i ,Lars Erik and Selst, Tyvand. Process simulation of glycol regeneration,2002. Retrieved
from

http://www.escet.urjc.es/~sop/alumnos/proyectos/descargas/propuesta06.pdf on 26th

November 2013

50

Perry, R.H and Green,D.W. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 2007. 8th edition,
McGrawHil.
Polk, Luk. Modeling Absorption Drying of Natural Gas,2009. NTNU .Retrieved from:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/prosessering/gammelt/materialer/Polak2009TEG.p
df on 10th August 2013
Prausnitz, J.M., Lichtenthaler, R.N and Azevedo, E.G. Molecular Thermodynamics of FluidPhase
Equilibria, 1999. Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Reid, Laurance S., SPE-AIME and Laurance Reid Associates.1990. Predicting the Capabilities of
Glycol, 1990.Journal of Petroleum Volume 22, Number 8 Pages

925-931.Retrieved from:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=0901476280060484&ite
mSocietyCode=SPE on 10th November 2013
Salamat, Reza. Gas Dehydration Offshore or Onshore, How, How Much and Design Tips,2012.
SPE International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition.Retrieved
from:http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=0901476280261f
3c&itemSocietyCode=SPE on 19th November 2013
Rojey,A Jaffret C., Carnot-Gandolphe S.,Durand B., Jullian S. and Valais M. Gas Production
Processing and Transport, 1997. Pg 252-276: Editions Techip.
Frde, Thomas. Drying of Natural Gas, 2008. AkerSolution,Trondheim .Retrieved
from:http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkForde2010.pdf
on17th September 2013
Smith , J.M.,Van Ness, H.C., and Abbott, M.M. Introduction to Chemical
EngineeringThermodynamic, . 2001. 6th edition. New York, 2001, McGraw-Hill.
Sing, Chen, Winnie Lo. Evaluation of effectiveness parameters on gas dehydration plant, 2012.
Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Thesis (Undergraduates Project Report (PSM)).Retrieved from:
http://umpir.ump.edu.my/4347/1/CD6325_WINNIE_LO_CHEN_SING.pdf on 10th
December 2013
Tioluwanimi Odunow, U.of Ibadan. Natural Gas Dehydration:The Solubility of Solid Desiccants
Technology in nigeria, . 2006. Retrieved from:
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=090147628010b46c&it
emSocietyCode=SPE on 20th August 2013
Thompson, P.A., CA Berry, A.P. Espenscheid, Radian Corp,JA Cunningham,, Gas Research
Stanford U. J.M. Evans and American Petroleum Institute. Estimating Hydrocarbon
51

Emissions From Triethylene Glycol . 1993.Retrieved from:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/app/pdfpurchase.do?itemChronicleId=0901476280089044&it
emSocietyCode=SPE on 10th November 2013
TPDC. Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation Annual Report 2013, 2013a. Dar es Salaam
TPDC. Tanzania Mnazi Bay and Songo Songo Natural Gas Processing Plant and Transportation
Pipeline Project, 2013b. Dar es Salaam
TPDC. Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation Annual Report, 2012. Dar es Salaam
TPDC. Songo Songo LPG Extraction Plant Preliminary Design Study, 2009. Calgary, Alberta
(Nov).
TPDC. Songo Songo Gas Development and Power Generation Project Lot 1 Process Design
Basis, 2003.
Wieninger, P. Operating Glycol Dehydration Systems, 1991. Norman OK, Proceedings of the
Laurance Reid

52

Appendix

Figure 8.1:Joule Thomson System with Hydrate Inhibitor (Netuil and Ditl , 2012)

Figure 8.2: Solubility of CO2 in Lean TEG (Wichert , 2005)

53

Figure 8.3: Solubility of H2S in Lean TEG (Wichert , 2005)

Table 8.1: Gas Composition for Songo Songo Gas Field (TPDC, 2003)

54

Figure 8.4: Hysys Conditions for All Streams during the Absorption Process with Scrubber

Figure 8.5: Hysys Streams during Absorption Process with Installing Scrubber

Figure 8.6: Streams to Obtain Equilibrium Data of TEG and Water

Figure 8.7: Composition to Obtain the Equilibrium Data of TEG and Water

55

Table 8.2: TEG-Water Equilibrium Data

H2O in inlet
TEG(mole
y(mole
x( mole
fraction)
fraction)
fraction)
0.01
0.000135
0.216203
0.02
0.000138
0.221446
0.04
0.000146
0.231641
0.06
0.000153
0.242174
0.1
0.000168
0.262685
0.12
0.000177
0.274597
0.16
0.000193
0.295474
0.2
0.000211
0.317823
0.24
0.000229
0.340885
0.28
0.000249
0.364564
0.3
0.000262
0.380000
0.36
0.000289
0.41081
0.4
0.000315
0.438132
0.46
0.000348
0.472696

Y(1/1-y)
0.000135
0.000138
0.000146
0.000153
0.000168
0.000177
0.000193
0.000211
0.000229
0.000249
0.000262
0.000289
0.000315
0.000348

X (1/1-x)
0.275841
0.284432
0.301475
0.319564
0.356272
0.378544
0.419394
0.465895
0.517186
0.573723
0.612903
0.697245
0.779777
0.896439

Figure 8.8: Hysys Condition for the Designed TEG Dehydration Process

56

Table 8.3: Absorption Process for Two Theoretical Stages

Circulation
rate
kg/h

water
in
kg/h

2 theoretical stages
water
water
out
removed
kg/h

GCR
L/kg
H20

kg/h

Absorption
capacity
%

200 44.7215

14.3819

30.3396

5.87

67.8

300 44.7215

10.1619

34.5596

7.73

77.3

400 44.7215

7.6135

37.108

9.60

83.0

500 44.7215

5.937

38.7845

11.48

86.7

600 44.7215

4.7793

39.9422

13.38

89.3

700 44.7215

3.9447

40.7768

15.29

91.2

800 44.7215

3.3231

41.3984

17.21

92.6

850 44.7215

3.0718

41.6497

18.17

93.1

900 44.7215

2.8499

41.8716

19.14

93.6

1000 44.7215

2.4792

42.2423

21.08

94.5

1050 44.7215

2.3242

42.3973

22.05

94.8

1100 44.7215

2.1849

42.5366

23.03

95.1

1150 44.7215

2.0599

42.6616

24.00

95.4

1200 44.7215

1.9467

42.7748

24.98

95.6

1250 44.7215

1.8449

42.8766

25.96

95.9

1300 44.7215

1.7519

42.9696

26.94

96.1

1400 44.7215

1.5907

43.1308

28.90

96.4

1500 44.7215

1.4552

43.2663

30.87

96.7

1600 44.7215

1.3405

43.381

32.84

97.0

1700 44.7215

1.2427

43.4788

34.82

97.2

1800 44.7215

1.1584

43.5631

36.79

97.4

1900 44.7215

1.0855

43.636

38.77

97.6

2000 44.7215

1.0219

43.6996

40.75

97.7

2100 44.7215

0.9661

43.7554

42.74

97.8

2200 44.7215

0.917

43.8045

44.72

97.9

2300 44.7215

0.8734

43.8481

46.71

98.0

57

Table 8.4: Absorption Process for Three Theoretical Stages

Circulation
rate

water
in

kg/h

kg/h

3 theoretical stages
water
water
out
removed
kg/h

GCR
L/kg
H20

kg/h

Absorption
capacity
%

200 44.7215

10.6188

34.1

5.22

76.3

300 44.7215

6.43

38.3

6.98

85.6

400 44.7215

4.2193

40.5

8.79

90.6

500 44.7215

2.9297

41.8

10.65

93.4

600 44.7215

2.1422

42.6

12.55

95.2

700 44.7215

1.6393

43.1

14.47

96.3

800 44.7215

1.3039

43.4

16.41

97.1

850 44.7215

1.1782

43.5

17.38

97.4

900 44.7215

1.0731

43.6

18.36

97.6

1000 44.7215

0.9037

43.8

20.32

98.0

1050 44.7215

0.8457

43.9

21.31

98.1

1100 44.7215

0.7909

43.9

22.30

98.2

1150 44.7215

0.7437

44.0

23.29

98.3

1200 44.7215

0.7028

44.0

24.28

98.4

1250 44.7215

0.6672

44.1

25.27

98.5

1300 44.7215

0.636

44.1

26.26

98.6

1400 44.7215

0.5847

44.1

28.25

98.7

1500 44.7215

0.5446

44.2

30.24

98.8

1600 44.7215

0.5127

44.2

32.23

98.9

1700 44.7215

0.4872

44.2

34.22

98.9

1800 44.7215

0.4665

44.3

36.22

99.0

1900 44.7215

0.4496

44.3

38.22

99.0

2000 44.7215

0.4356

44.3

40.21

99.0

2100 44.7215

0.4239

44.3

42.21

99.1

2200 44.7215

0.4141

44.3

44.21

99.1

2300 44.7215

0.4059

44.3

46.22

99.1

58

Table 8.5: Absorption Process for Four Theoretical Stages

Circulation
rate

water
in

kg/h

kg/h

4 theoretical stages
water
water
out
removed
kg/h

GCR
L/kg
H20

kg/h

Absorption
capacity
%

200 44.7215

8.4014

36.3

4.90

81.2

300 44.7215

4.353

40.4

6.62

90.3

400 44.7215

2.5727

42.1

8.45

94.2

500 44.7215

1.623

43.1

10.33

96.4

600 44.7215

1.114

43.6

12.25

97.5

700 44.7215

0.8316

43.9

14.20

98.1

800 44.7215

0.6642

44.1

16.17

98.5

850 44.7215

0.6068

44.1

17.16

98.6

900 44.7215

0.5614

44.2

18.15

98.7

1000 44.7215

0.4958

44.2

20.13

98.9

1050 44.7215

0.4721

44.2

21.13

98.9

1100 44.7215

0.4527

44.3

22.13

99.0

1150 44.7215

0.4357

44.3

23.12

99.0

1200 44.7215

0.4235

44.3

24.12

99.1

1250 44.7215

0.4124

44.3

25.12

99.1

1300 44.7215

0.4031

44.3

26.12

99.1

1400 44.7215

0.3886

44.3

28.12

99.1

1500 44.7215

0.3781

44.3

30.12

99.2

1600 44.7215

0.3703

44.4

32.12

99.2

1700 44.7215

0.365

44.4

34.13

99.2

1800 44.7215

0.3601

44.4

36.13

99.2

1900 44.7215

0.3561

44.4

38.14

99.2

2000 44.7215

0.354

44.4

40.14

99.2

2100 44.7215

0.352

44.4

42.15

99.2

2200 44.7215

0.3503

44.4

44.15

99.2

2300 44.7215

0.349

44.4

46.16

99.2

59

Table 8.6: Absorption Process for Five Theoretical Stages

Circulation
rate

water
in

kg/h

kg/h

5 theoretical stages
water
water
out
removed
kg/h

GCR
L/kg
H20

kg/h

Absorption
Capacity
%

200 44.7215

7.0125

37.709

4.72

84.32

300 44.7215

3.257

41.4645

6.44

92.72

400 44.7215

1.6917

43.0298

8.28

96.22

500 44.7215

1.0033

43.7182

10.18

97.76

600 44.7215

0.6855

44.036

12.13

98.47

700 44.7215

0.531

44.1905

14.11

98.81

800 44.7215

0.4515

44.27

16.09

98.99

850 44.7215

0.4267

44.2948

17.09

99.05

900 44.7215

0.4082

44.3133

18.09

99.09

1000 44.7215

0.3835

44.338

20.08

99.14

1050 44.7215

0.3753

44.3462

21.08

99.16

1100 44.7215

0.3689

44.3526

22.08

99.18

1150 44.7215

0.3638

44.3577

23.09

99.19

1200 44.7215

0.3598

44.3617

24.09

99.20

1250 44.7215

0.3566

44.3649

25.09

99.20

1300 44.7215

0.3541

44.3674

26.09

99.21

1400 44.7215

0.3503

44.3712

28.10

99.22

1500 44.7215

0.3478

44.3737

30.10

99.22

1600 44.7215

0.3461

44.3754

32.11

99.23

1700 44.7215

0.3449

44.3766

34.11

99.23

1800 44.7215

0.3441

44.3774

36.12

99.23

1900 44.7215

0.3435

44.378

38.12

99.23

2000 44.7215

0.3431

44.3784

40.13

99.23

2100 44.7215

0.3429

44.3786

42.14

99.23

2200 44.7215

0.3427

44.3788

44.14

99.23

60

Amount of Water Removed Against GCR

Amount of Water Removed ,Kg/ h

45.0
44.0
43.0
42.0
41.0
40.0
39.0
38.0
37.0
36.0
35.0
34.0
33.0
32.0
31.0
30.0
29.0

N = 4 Stages
N= 3 Stages
N = 2 Stages
N = 5 Stages

2.00

7.00

12.00

17.00

22.00

27.00

32.00

37.00

42.00

Glycol Circulation Rate (GCR), Litres of TEG/ Kg of H20

47.00

Figure 8.9: Effects of Theoretical Stages on the Capacity of Water Removed in kg/ hr
Table 8.7: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 15oC

Circulation
rate of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1100
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

Number of tray 3,15oC

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed
GCR
capacity
L/kg
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
H2O
%
44.7215 1.1203
43.6012
4.08
97.5
44.7215 0.3455
44.376
8.03
99.2
44.7215 0.2076
44.5139
12.00
99.5
44.7215 0.1669
44.5546
15.99
99.6
44.7215 0.1511
44.5704
19.98
99.7
44.7215 0.1439
44.5776
21.97
99.7
44.7215 0.1403
44.5812
23.97
99.7
44.7215 0.1384
44.5831
27.96
99.7
44.7215 0.1373
44.5842
31.96
99.7
44.7215
0.137
44.5845
35.95
99.7
44.7215 0.1368
44.5847
39.95
99.7
44.7215 0.1366
44.5849
43.94
99.7
44.7215 0.1365
44.585
47.93
99.7

61

Table 8.8: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 30 oC on Absorption Capacity

3 theoretical stages , Temperature, 30oC
Circulation
rate of
TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1100
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

water
water in out

water
removed

kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
44.7215 10.6188
34.1
44.7215 4.2193
40.5
44.7215 2.1422
42.6
44.7215 1.3039
43.4
44.7215 0.9037
43.8
44.7215 0.7909
43.9
44.7215 0.7028
44.0
44.7215 0.5847
44.1
44.7215 0.5127
44.2
44.7215 0.4665
44.3
44.7215 0.4356
44.3
44.7215 0.4141
44.3
44.7215 0.4059
44.3

Absorption
capacity

GCR
L/kg
H2O
%
5.22
8.79
12.55
16.41
20.32
22.30
24.28
28.25
32.23
36.22
40.21
44.21
48.23

76.3
90.6
95.2
97.1
98.0
98.2
98.4
98.7
98.9
99.0
99.0
99.1
99.1

Table 8.9: Effects of Inlet Temperature of 35 oC on Absorption Capacity

Circulation
rate
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1100
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages ,35oC

water
water
water in out
removed
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
44.7215 18.6583
26.0632
44.7215 8.5484
36.1731
44.7215 4.6665
40.055
44.7215 2.8688
41.8527
44.7215 1.9496
42.7719
44.7215 1.4392
43.2823
44.7215 1.1345
43.587
44.7215 0.9427
43.7788
44.7215 0.8163
43.9052
44.7215 0.8163
43.9052
44.7215 0.7299
43.9916
44.7215 0.6689
44.0526
44.7215 0.6244
44.0971

62

Absorption
GCR capacity
L/kg
H20 %
6.83
58.28
9.85
80.89
13.34
89.57
17.02
93.59
20.82
95.64
22.63
96.78
24.52
97.46
28.48
97.89
32.45
98.17
36.51
98.17
40.48
98.37
44.47
98.50
48.46
98.60

Table 8.10: Effects of 0% of H2S on the Absorption Capacity

Circulation
rate of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages , 0% mole H2S

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed
GCR
capacity
L/kg
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
H2O
%
50.0101
13.08
36.9
4.82
73.8
50.0101 5.4319
44.6
7.99
89.1
50.0101 2.8174
47.2 11.32
94.4
50.0101 1.7055
48.3 14.75
96.6
50.0101 1.1712
48.8 18.23
97.7
50.0101 0.8863
49.1 21.75
98.2
50.0101 0.7215
49.3 25.29
98.6
50.0101 0.6201
49.4 28.85
98.8
50.0101 0.5547
49.5 32.41
98.9
50.0101 0.5106
49.5 35.98
99.0
50.0101 0.4799
49.5 39.55
99.0
50.0101 0.4578
49.6 43.13
99.1

Table 8.11: Effects of 15 % H2S on the Absorption Capacity

Circulation
rate of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages ,15 % mole H2S

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed
GCR
capacity
L/kg
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
H2O
%
50.0101 15.9066
34.1035
5.22
68.2
50.0101 6.7018
43.3083
8.22
86.6
50.0101
3.474
46.5361
11.48
93.1
50.0101 2.0874
47.9227
14.87
95.8
50.0101 1.4177
48.5924
18.33
97.2
50.0101
1.051
48.9591
21.83
97.9
50.0101 0.8394
49.1707
25.35
98.3
50.0101 0.7092
49.3009
28.90
98.6
50.0101
0.625
49.3851
32.46
98.8
50.0101 0.5681
49.442
36.02
98.9
50.0101 0.5285
49.4816
39.59
98.9
50.0101 0.5002
49.5099
43.17
99.0

63

Table 8.12: Effects of 30% H2S on the Absorption Capacity

Circulation
rate of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages ,30 % H2S

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed
GCR
capacity
L/kg
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
H2O
%
50.0101 19.7121
30.298
5.88
60.6
50.0101 8.5473
41.4628
8.59
82.9
50.0101 4.4537
45.5564 11.73
91.1
50.0101 2.6605
47.3496 15.05
94.7
50.0101 1.7743
48.2358 18.46
96.5
50.0101 1.12941
48.88069 21.86
97.7
50.0101 1.0139
48.9962 25.44
98.0
50.0101 0.8442
49.1659 28.98
98.3
50.0101 0.7301
49.28 32.53
98.5
50.0101 0.6536
49.3565 36.08
98.7
50.0101 0.6003
49.4098 39.65
98.8
50.0101 0.5621
49.448 43.22
98.9

Table 8.13: Effects of 0 % of CO2 on the Absorption Capacity

3 theoretical stages , 0 % mole CO2
Circulation rate
of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

water in water out water removed

kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
51.1506
12.82
51.1506
5.1607
51.1506
2.6238
51.1506
1.5834
51.1506
1.0822
51.1506
0.8191
51.1506
0.6685
51.1506
0.5767
51.1506
0.5176
51.1506
0.4782
51.1506
0.4508
51.1506
0.4313

38.3
46.0
48.5
49.6
50.1
50.3
50.5
50.6
50.6
50.7
50.7
50.7

64

Absorption
GCR
capacity
L/kg
H2O
%
4.65
74.9
7.74
89.9
11.01
94.9
14.37
96.9
17.79
97.9
21.23
98.4
24.70
98.7
28.17
98.9
31.66
99.0
35.15
99.1
38.64
99.1
42.14
99.2

Table 8.14: Effects of 15% CO2 on the Absorption on Capacity

Circulation
rate
%
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages, 15% mole CO2

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed
GCR
capacity
L/kg
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
H2O
%
51.1506 16.6945
34.4561
5.17
67.4
51.1506 7.1417
44.0089
8.09
86.0
51.1506 3.7323
47.4183
11.27
92.7
51.1506
2.262
48.8886
14.57
95.6
51.1506 1.5236
49.627
17.94
97.0
51.1506 1.1275
50.0231
21.36
97.8
51.1506 0.8965
50.2541
24.81
98.2
51.1506 0.7536
50.397
28.27
98.5
51.1506
0.661
50.4896
31.75
98.7
51.1506 0.5984
50.5522
35.23
98.8
51.1506 0.5549
50.5957
38.72
98.9

Table 8.15: Effects of 30% CO2 on the Absorption Capacity

Circulation
rate of TEG
kg/h
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

3 theoretical stages ,30% mole CO2

water
water
Absorption
water in out
removed GCR
capacity
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
L/kg H2O
%
51.1506 16.6945
34.4561
5.17
67.4
51.1506 7.1417
44.0089
8.09
86.0
51.1506 3.7323
47.4183
11.27
92.7
51.1506
2.262
48.8886
14.57
95.6
51.1506 1.5236
49.627
17.94
97.0
51.1506 1.1275
50.0231
21.36
97.8
51.1506 0.8965
50.2541
24.81
98.2
51.1506 0.7536
50.397
28.27
98.5
51.1506
0.661
50.4896
31.75
98.7
51.1506 0.5984
50.5522
35.23
98.8
51.1506 0.5549
50.5957
38.72
98.9
51.1506 0.5235
50.6271
42.21
99.0

65