Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The MEG (Mono Ethylene) Injection Gas Dehydration Process Evaluation for the
Margarita Field Development
Moises Alfredo Vergara Contreras and Nicolas Foucart, Repsol YPF
The objective of the study is to select the gas The different aspects evaluated between MEG Injection
dehydration process system within the Margarita Field and Contactor Tower with TEG, are favorable toward the
Development Project based on MEG (MONO MEG Injection as:
ETHYLENE) Injection with Mechanical Refrigeration
and compare it with the Glycol Dehydration Process o CAPEX: FOB Cost.
System, from the technological and economical point of o MEG Injection saves MEG regeneration unit
view. which is smaller and lighter.
o Elimination of TEG contactors will simplify the
The dehydration process based on TEG is the most plant, reduce installation cost and avoid large
common process for natural gas dehydration; it is an heavy vessels with transportation constraints.
efficient technology and its operation is very well known. o MEG injection is easier to regenerate than TEG
and alleviates environmental issues with BTEX
In order to reduce the CAPEX and OPEX of the Project, emission.
the operator has studied potential process options. One
way to optimize the gas dehydration process is by After taking in consideration all the points in favor of the
simplifying and combining it with other processes, which MEG Injection, it is recommended to install it in the Gas
is the case when considering the combined MEG Treatment Plant.
injection with mechanical refrigeration, a common
practice in the Industry. INTRODUCTION
The scope of this report covers: The Margarita Project calls for a field development,
covering the flow lines, main header, slug catcher, gas
o Estimate of the downstream and utility dehydration and dew point control, condensate
equipments as required (glycol loss, glycol rate stabilization, and water treatment. This system is known
recirculation, electrical requirements, etc) as the Gas Treatment Plant (GTP), which shall produce
o Cost Estimate (OPEX / CAPEX). a gas stream and condensate.
o Explanation of uncertainties and risks that may
be associated in applying the dehydration The project has specifications to sell gas, in such way it
process on this particular application, and steps should select the process that allows to fullfil with the
(if required) to eliminate those uncertainties. required condition. The gas sale specifications are
o To take experience of similar plants with similar temperature dew point 32 F and 600 psig and 7 lb
requirement. H2O/MMscfd. The selected process wants a very well
known technology that is easy to install and low
2 SPE 107292
investment. The study considered two processes to be Firstable, feed gas enters an inlet separator which
installed in the project. One is The Dehydrators with removes free condensate and water. This reduces the
TEG which is the most-common equipment to remove load on the glycol regeneration facilities and is
water from gas and the other one is MEG (Mono particularly important if free water is present. Lean glycol
Ethylene Glycol) Injection with Mechanical (70 to 80 % by weight glycol solution) is injected
Refrigeration. upstream of the gas / gas heat exchanger, just before
the temperature falls below at which hydrates might
The deshydrators with TEG is the typical gas form. Continuous mixing of the gas and glycol solution is
dehydration process where the gas feed enters at the necessary as the gas temperature is lowered and water
bottom of tower glycol contactor; the regenerated lean condenses from the vapor phase. Sufficient glycol is
glycol is pumped to the top tray of the contactor. The injected at this point, also to provide hydrate inhibition
glycol absorbs water as it flows down through the downstream of the chiller unit.
contactor counter current to the gas flow.
Figura # 2
Figure # 3
Figura # 4
Liquids from the cold separator are difficult to separate FOB Cost (CAPEX)
at low temperatures and require heating between 86 F Table 4 shows the capital cost estimate for both the
and 140 F for effective separation in the glycol / dehydration with contactor tower process scheme and
condensate separator. The separator should be capable the MEG injection.
of degassing glycol, and in the process should assure
that the temperature is adequate for the separation of
glycol and condensate.
Glycol Losses
The GTP location is not of easy access; the way is It would be recommended to install the MEG Injection
mountainous and has irregular and narrow roads which based dehydration process in the Margarita
are not paved, about 113 km long, presenting Development Project where water content in gas is
transportation problem. Large trucks carrying heavy condensed in the chillier unit and it is removed in cold
loads can become stranded onsharp turns due to the separation, requiring an inhibitor injection to avoid
washouts. The roads have limit of load equal to 120 ton hydrate formation.
by 20 meters long.
When the specification of the sales gas called for dew
The weight of MEG regeneration unit is below 80 ton point control, the process requires low temperatures and
and the size is of 4 meters x 14 meters. can normally be used for dehydration of gas with MEG to
prevent hydration formation.
The TEG regeneration unit may weight over 120 ton and
the design should be considered by the road limitation And when the gas sales do not require a dew point
which could have an impact in the cost. specification, it is recommended to use the contactor
tower with regeneration TEG, because a dew point plant
(Mechanical Refrigeration) is more expensive than the
The associated technological risk traditional dehydration process.
Table 5 shows different aspects compared between the [6] Minkkinen, A., Larue, J. and Patel, S., Methanol
MEG (MEG) Injections and Contactor Tower where Gas Treating Scheme Offers Economics,
the MEG injection is favorable. The characteristics are Versatility, The Oil and Gas Journal, June 1, 1992.
as follows: [7] Campbell, John M., Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Vols. I &II, 6th Edition, 2nd printing
(1988), Campbell Petroleum Series.