Formulated solvent reduces shale gas
processing costs
A gas treating facility is upgraded to a formulated solvent to achieve reduced
operating costs compared with operations using a commodity amine blend
ROBERT L DOTSON
Dow Oil, Gas & Mining
W
ith the development of
new drilling technology
and hydraulic fracturing
techniques, global shale gas produc-
tion has increased significantly over
the past five years and is projected
to continue increasing for several
years. According to the International
Energy Agency,1 “by 2020 the
United States becomes a net
exporter of natural gas and is almost
self-sufficient in energy, in net
terms, by 2035.” “…as demand
increases by 50% to 5 trillion cubic
meters in 2035. Nearly half of the
increase in production to 2035 is
from unconventional gas, with most
of this coming from the United
States, Australia, and China…”
Increases in shale gas production
and decreasing energy prices glob-
ally will require competitive
exploration and operational
expenses among the energy options.
In early 2011, after having plant
operational issues, poor reliability
of gas treating facility equipment
and high operational costs, a US
gas treating operator met with Dow
Oil, Gas & Mining to discuss
options to reduce operational costs.
Based on the operational perfor-
mance information provided for
newly released Ucarsol Shale
Specialty Solvent from Dow, refer-
ence facilities, solvent technical
performance simulations and no
requirement for expensive and
complicated chemical additives, the
operator decided to offer one unit
that was about to start up as a
demonstration facility. It was one
of two similar units supplied with
sour gas from the same gas pipe-
line and located at the same
facility.
www.eptq.com
dow.indd 1
exhibits the highest degree of reac-
Acid dissociation constant (pKa) of
pKa (25°C) tion of gas treating amines when
common amines and CO2
compared to the pKa of aqueous
CO2 of 6.0 at 25°C.2 In comparison,
OH- 13.8
DEA has a pKa of 8.88 and MDEA
Monoethanolamine (MEA) 9.5
Diethanolamine (DEA) 8.88 has a pKa of 8.52 at 25°C.
Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) 8.52 In spite of its higher pKa
CO2 (first dissociation) 6.0 compared to MDEA, DEA has
disadvantages stemming from its
Table 1 propensity to degrade in the pres-
ence of CO2 and corrode carbon
Amine/CO2 chemistry steel.3 The degradation reactions of
The absorption of CO2 from a gas DEA are catalysed by, but do not
stream uses the solvent’s ability to consume, CO2. Work by Polderman
accept a proton, which provides a and Steele,4 Kennard and
chemical driving force to assist Meisen, 5,6,7,8
Blanc et al,9 and Kim
solubilisation of the CO2. This and Sartori10 determined the DEA
propensity for the aqueous CO2 to degradation reaction mechanism
act as an acid in the subsequent shown in Figure 1.
reaction with an amine takes place According to Kim and Sartori, the
due to the higher dissociation DEA-CO2 degradation reactions
constant (pKa) of the amine. The are initiated by the direct reaction
larger the difference in pKa of DEA and CO2 forming (HOCH2
between the amine and the CO2, CH2)2NCO2H (DEA-carbamate),
the more complete the acid/base which condenses to 3-(2-hydrox-
reaction that will take place. As yethyl) oxazolidone-2 (HEO). The
Table 1 shows, MEA has the high- HEO then reacts with another mole-
est pKa (9.5 at 25°C) and therefore cule of DEA, releasing a molecule of
O OH
H
N + CO2
N
HO OH HO OH
DEA DEA-carbamate
O OH O
HO
N N
O + H2O
HO OH
HEO
DEA-carbamate
O HO
HO
+ (HOCH2CH2)2NH
N N OH + CO2
N
HO
O H
HEO DEA THEED
Figure 1 Reactions of CO2 catalysed degradation of DEA
Gas 2013 33
13/03/2013 11:46

Solvent trial data collection
Gas flow, MMscfd, daily avg.
Filter changes, frequency
Amine make-up, gallons
Chemical additives, total dollars (US)
Antifoam use, pints
Amine analysis, bicine, wt%
Amine analysis, iron, ppmv
Table 2
CO2 and forming N,N,N’-tris
(2-hydroxyethyl) ethyldiamine
(THEED). Some of the THEED
slowly condenses to form N,N’-bis
(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine (BHEP).
Although several of the degradation
products may contribute to the
corrosivity of the solution, it is
unknown which is the primary
source of corrosion. Bicine,
N-N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)glycine, is
another DEA degradation product
that forms in the presence of oxygen
or glyoxal (a dialdehyde used for
H2S scavenging) in the amine.
Kim and Sartori demonstrated
that these CO2-DEA degradation
reactions are independent of the H2S
concentration, are not initiated by
thermal degradation, and are
roughly proportional to the CO2
partial pressure. Blanc et al show
that CO2 degradation products do
not cause corrosion in gas environ-
ments that contain a sufficient
concentration of H2S. It is generally
agreed, per guidelines in API 945,11
that solutions with H2S-to-CO2 ratios
of roughly 1:19 reduce corrosion
rates substantially by forming a
protective iron sulphide film.12 In a
“CO2-only” natural gas stream, such
as the Haynesville Shale region of
the US, there is insufficient H2S
concentration to form this stable
layer of protective iron sulphide.
MDEA was developed to allow
operations at higher amine concen-
trations without CO2 degradation.
However, unlike primary and
secondary amines (MEA and DEA),
MDEA has been shown to be kineti-
cally limited for CO2 removal, as it
does not form a carbamate molecule
directly. MDEA is dependent on the
CO2 hydrolysis reaction to create
carbonic acid, which slowly dissoci-
ates to bicarbonate and finally reacts
with MDEA for CO2 absorption. The
34 Gas 2013
dow.indd 2
carbonic acid-to- bicarbonate reac-
tion for MDEA is very slow
compared to the direct reaction of
the carbamate in the MEA and DEA
reaction steps, resulting in a reduced
CO2 reaction with MDEA,13 allowing
CO2 to leave the absorber with
limited removal (CO2 slip).
Therefore, an activator is utilised as
part of the MDEA formulation to
effectively assist the reaction rate
and tune CO2 selectivity, enhancing
CO2 removal in the absorber. For a
more detailed understanding of
amine gas treating chemistry, refer
to Fundamentals – Gas Sweetening,
LRGCC.13
Solvent trial
In early 2011, the operator decided
to compare Ucarsol solvent with its
standard 80 wt% MDEA/20 wt%
DEA blend diluted to a 50 wt%
amine solution (40 wt% MDEA/10
wt% DEA/50 wt% water). The
operator decided it would use the
collected data to perform an
economic evaluation and an opera-
bility evaluation. Data collected
during the trial are shown in
Table 2.
Facility information
Haynesville shale gas composition
for this area is shown in Table 3.
Unit 1 MDEA/DEA blend
Unit 1 is a 250 gpm facility with a
typical gas treating design:
• 75 MMscfd feed gas treating with
bypass
• Absorber: 6ft diameter, 20 trays
• Flash drum: 6ft diameter x 12ft
TL-TL
• Regenerator: 5ft diameter, 20
trays
• APV plate and frame L/R
exchanger
• Direct-fired Bryan reboiler
• 10 500 gallon system volume
• 50 wt% blended amine (80 wt%
MDEA/20 wt% DEA)
• Facility is manned during day
operations
• Facility is unmanned during
night hours
• Facility uses a digital control
system (DCS) and paged alerts.
Unit 2 Ucarsol Shale H-102
Unit 2 is a 200 gpm facility with
Haynesville shale gas composition
Temp, °F 100
Pressure, psig 1000
CO2, mol% 3.000
H2S, mol% 0.001
N2, mol% 0.100
Methane, mol% 96.400
Ethane, mol% 0.025
Propane, mol% 0.030
C4+, mol% 0.444
  100.000  
Table 3
a typical gas treating design:
• 65 MMscfd feed gas treating
capability with bypass
• Absorber: 6ft diameter, 20 trays
• Flash drum: 4.5ft diameter x 12ft
TL-TL
• Regenerator: 5ft diameter, 20
trays
• Dual shell and tube L/R
exchangers
• Kettle reboiler/hot oil system
from oil heater
• 15 000 gallon system volume
• 45 wt% Ucarsol solvent
• Facility is manned during day
operations
• Facility is unmanned during
night hours
• Facility uses a DCS and paged
alerts.
Trial description
Unit 1 had been in operation for
four months using the operator’s
standard 50 wt% MDEA/DEA
blend prior to the completion of
Unit 2’s construction. Prior to the
addition of the Ucarsol solvent to
Unit 2, the system was washed and
drained to remove machining oils
and particulates from construction,
which can cause foaming and other
issues. Unit 2 was then loaded with
45 wt% Ucarsol solvent and recom-
missioned without issue.
Both Units 1 and 2 were loaded
with sour gas feed to a point where
they were able to operate satisfacto-
rily and meet the treated gas
specification. Since this operator
has several units on the pipeline, it
is able to move sour gas to these
units, most of the time, to keep
them loaded up to maximum feed
rates. Unit 1, using the MDEA/
DEA blend, continued to add the
required chemical additives, as
www.eptq.com
13/03/2013 11:47
 facility, evaluate the cause and
20000 manually restart the system.

Bicine concentration, ppmw

18000 Antifoam (8-16 ounces) was added
16000 until the foaming was under
14000 control. During these foaming
12000 events, some quantity of amine was
10000 lost through the treated gas outlet,
8000 and make-up MDEA/DEA blend
6000 was added to the system to adjust
4000 the concentration back to 50 wt%.
2000 Unit 1’s 20 micron rich and lean
0
cartridge filters were changed twice
during the trial. During this same
09

09

10

11

12

12
01
period, Unit 2 had no major foam-
20

20

20

20

20

20
l2
ay

ec

g
Ju
Ju

Ja

Au
Fe
ing issues, no shutdowns related to
M

the amine and no filter changes.

Figure 2 Bicine concentration at 17 facilities with “CO2-only” gas using MDEA (40 wt%)/ Antifoam was added to Unit 2, as
DEA (10 wt%)/water (50 wt%) needed, when minor foaming was
thought to be occurring, but no
recommended by the chemical rates. The bypass gas rate was typi- serious foaming conditions
supplier, to manage corrosion due cally 5-10 MMscfd for a total sales occurred to shut down the unit
to the DEA degradation products gas rate of 75-90 MMscfd. Unit 2, during the trial. However, the unit
and bicine. Unit 2, using Ucarsol using Ucarsol solvent, was did shut down due to boiler issues.
solvent, required no additives. designed for 65 MMscfd of sour gas Unit 2 used similar 20 micron
Amine samples for rich and lean feed, but due to the deeper CO2 cartridge filters. Both units ran
amine streams were collected removal and better operational approximately a 10% slipstream of
monthly and analysed in Dow’s performance at high gas rates the the circulating amine through the
amine lab, and the results evalu- plant operators were able to load particulate filters and carbon bed.
ated. The evaluation used normal the facility with 90-100 MMscfd According to the plant operators,
amine analysis to determine amine until equipment limits were met. A they “immediately noticed a differ-
chemistry, amine concentration bypass gas rate of 15-25 MMscfd ence” in the operability of the two
(wt%), bicine concentration (wt%) allowed a total sales gas rate of units. During most start-ups, Unit 1
and iron (ppmw) for corrosion level 105-125 MMscfd. The deeper CO2 was very onerous and often
potential, amine colour, amine clar- removal allowed for a larger bypass foamed. Operators felt like they
ity and amine contaminants. gas rate. However, the H2S in the were “fighting the unit” to get it
total gas stream was typically the started and keep it running. It
Trial results limiting factor. required antifoam, corrosion inhibi-
Unit 1, using the MDEA/DEA During the trial period, Unit 1 tor and the addition of bicine
blend, designed for 75 MMscfd of had three upsets due to severe “killer”. Unit 2 started up with little
sour gas feed, was able to treat foaming, causing the system to shut issue, foamed occasionally with
70-80 MMscfd but was limited due down automatically. A plant opera- minor severity and required no
to foaming issues at higher gas tor was required to travel to the chemical additives to manage
corrosion.
The bicine concentration in 17 of
500 the operator’s facilities using the
MDEA/DEA blend and chemical
Bicine concentration, ppmw

450
400 additives for a 18-month period
prior to the trial averaged ~8000
350
ppmw, with a maximum of 18 000
300
ppmw (see Figure 2). Over 18
250 months, the facilities using MDEA/
200 DEA blend with chemical additives
150 averaged about 3000 ppmw bicine.
100
During the trial, Unit 1, operating
with the MDEA/DEA blend with
50
chemical additives, had bicine
0 concentrations of 3200 and 4000
ppmw (two samples). After upgrad-
11

11

12

12

12
1
20

20

20

20

20

20

ing to Ucarsol solvent, it has a

ay

ov

ar

p
Ju
Au

Se
M
M

non-detectable bicine concentration

Figure 3 Bicine concentration at 10 facilities using Ucarsol (45 wt%) (<100 ppmv) after 16 months of

36 Gas 2013 www.eptq.com

dow.indd 3 13/03/2013 11:47

 has averaged 7.8 ppmw, with a
Operational cost comparison of MDEA/DEA blend and Ucarsol: new 300 gpm facility
peak of 48 ppmw, which quickly
dropped back to the average
New facility cost comparison concentration. Unit 1 had a pipeline
45 wt% Ucarsol 50 wt% MDEA/DEA blend brine-water incursion in July 2012,
Amine, initial fill, lb 58 000 64 500
Amine make-up, lb/yr 17 400 35 000 which brought chlorides (along
First year amine, lb 75 400 99 500 with other contaminants) into the
Chemical additives and antifoam, $ 720 24 912 amine system. This resulted in the
Equip maintenance due to corrosion, $ 0* 20 000 iron increasing to 11 and 14 ppmw
Payback, yr 0.36
until the 13 500 ppmw concentra-
* No additional equipment maintenance expenses due to corrosion tion of chlorides was removed from
the Ucarsol solvent using the
Table 4 Ucarsep Reclamation System from
Dow.
Although this trial was scheduled
50 for three months, the operator
45 decided to remove the MDEA/DEA
Iron concentration, ppmw

40 blend in Unit 1 after just over two

months. The trial had provided
35
enough information for the operator
30
to conclude that Ucarsol solvent
25 was their solvent of choice for the
20 future. As stated by the operator,
Unit 2 “Unit 1 did not perform as well as
15 Trial
10
period Unit 2”. Even though both units
Unit 1 were treating the same gas, Unit 1
5
had more foaming events, shut-
0 downs and filter changes. The
chemical additive cost, higher bicine
11

11

11

11

12
01

01
20

20

20

20

20
r2

l2

concentrations and therefore corro-

b

ec

ct
Ju
Ap
Ju
Fe

Se

O
D

sion potential, higher iron

Figure 4 Iron concentration for 10 facilities on Urcasol concentrations, and more solids
filtered out of the amine (inter-
operation. Unit 2, while operating may not have been completely preted as corrosion products by the
on Ucarsol solvent, had a non- drained and washed, and that some operator) was enough to justify the
detectable bicine concentration of the high bicine amine was in solvent upgrade. Unit 2 ran cleaner
during the trial and is still non-de- isolated piping (spare pump, (fewer solids filtered), which the
tectable after 18 months of bypass, and so on), contaminating operator deduced was a result of
operation (see Figure 3). All facili- the solvent when it was opened. lower corrosion rates due to no
ties operating on Ucarsol solvent Iron concentrations for Unit 2 bicine and degradation products in
have shown non-detectable (<100 during the trial were measured at the solvent. Their cost evaluation
ppmw) bicine (appearing as one 3 ppmw and 3 ppmw, indicating also determined, based on their esti-
line) with the exception of one facil- very low corrosion rates (see Figure mates for amine make-up usage and
ity, which started near 100 ppmw 4; Units 1 and 2 are indicated by the maintenance, that Ucarsol solvent
and spiked up as high as 460 ppmw green and red lines). During the was the lowest long-term cost of
for a short period before dropping past 18 months, with the addition of operation option rather than their
back down to non-detectable. No eight more units (the total 10 shown standard MDEA/DEA blend with
specific reason for this was found, as lines) upgraded to Ucarsol chemical additives. The lower price
but it was suspected that the system solvent, the iron concentration of the MDEA/DEA blend was
offset by the cost of the required
Operational cost comparison of MDEA/DEA blend and Ucarsol: existing 300 gpm facility chemical additives and high mainte-
nance costs. The operator’s cost
analysis did not include the addi-
Existing facility cost comparison tional cost of filter changes and lost
45 wt% Ucarsol 50 wt% MDEA/DEA blend
Amine, Initial fill, lb 58 000 0 revenue due to down time (as it
Amine make-up, lb/yr 17 400 35 000 was able to switch gas to other
First year amine, lb 75 400 35 000 units, so it was not technically “lost
Chemical additives and antifoam, $ 720 24 912 revenue”), which would have
Equip maintenance due to corrosion, $ 0 20 000
Payback, yr 1.7 increased the cost advantage.
However, for a single or isolated
Table 5 unit that cannot switch gas to

38 Gas 2013 www.eptq.com

dow.indd 4 13/03/2013 11:47

 Trial data evaluation

45 wt% Ucarsol 50 wt% MDEA/DEA blend

Gas flow, MMscfd • Unit 2, designed for 65 MMscfd treated up to • Unit 1, designed for 75 MMscfd, was able to treat 75-80 MMscfd
90-100 MMscfd during the trial and for 18 months during the trial.
since. • Limited by severe foaming at higher sour gas rates.
• Unit 2 treated gas to a lower CO2 concentration,
allowing for increased sour gas bypass flow.
Result: more sweet gas to sales at pipeline specifications.

Filter changes, • No filter changes during the trial. • Required two filter changes.
total number

Amine • Required normal amine make-up volume during • Required amine make-up because of two severe foaming events.
make-up, qty the trial.

Chemical additives, • Requires no additives. • Requires continuous addition of corrosion inhibitor and bicine
total dollars (US) “killer” additives.
• Chemical additive cost: $22 752/yr.

Antifoam use • Low antifoam usage due to a low foaming tendency. • Used three times on Unit 1 due to multiple foaming events and
two severe foaming events.

Bicine concentration, • Unit 2 had non-detectable bicine concentration • Unit 1 bicine concentrations were 3200 and 4000 ppmw (two
wt% (<100 ppmv) during the trial and after 18 months of samples).
operation. • The bicine concentration for an 18-month period prior to the trial
• Unit 1, after upgrading from MDEA/DEA blend to averaged 8000 ppmw, with a maximum of 18 000 ppmw.
Ucarsol solvent, has a non-detectable bicine • Over the past 18 months, the MDEA/DEA blend has averaged
concentration after 16 months of operation. ~3000 ppmw bicine.

Iron concentration, • During the trial, Unit 2 maintained iron concentrations • Units operating on a MDEA/DEA blend from June 2009 to Nov
ppmw between 1-4 ppmw, indicating very low corrosion rates. 2012 averaged 18 ppmw iron. Typical iron range is 8-20 ppmw.

• During the past 18 months, all 10 units upgraded to

Ucarsol have averaged 8 ppmw, with a peak of 48 ppmw.

Operational reliability, • 100% amine operational reliability during the trial. • 95% amine operational reliability during the trial. Unit 1 shut
% of time treating gas Unit 2 shut down due to boiler issues. down twice during the trial due to severe amine foaming events.

Table 6

another unit, this lost revenue
would further increase the cost
advantage.
Operations cost comparison
The operator estimated first-year
and annual operating expenses for
a new 300 gpm facility, based on
MDEA/DEA blend operational
experience and trial data (see Table
4). A new facility requires an initial
fill of either amine. The annual
operating cost of the MDEA/DEA
blend requires the addition of
chemical additives at $22 752/year
for a unit this size. MDEA/DEA
make-up amine, based on operator
experience and trial results, was
estimated to be two times the
make-up requirement for Ucarsol
solvent. Antifoam usage for the
MDEA/DEA blend, based on the
trial, was estimated at three times
that for the Ucarsol solvent. From
10 years of operational experience
with MDEA/DEA blends in
“CO2-only” gas, the operator esti-
mated equipment repairs to pumps,
valves and piping due to corrosion
(corrosion maintenance) at $20 000/
year for the MDEA/DEA blend.
The operator concluded that the
payback is 0.36 years for a new 300
gpm facility using solvent in place
of their standard MDEA/DEA
blend.
Note: due to pricing confidential-
ity of amine and antifoam, specific
amine and antifoam costs are not
provided. All operational cost
comparison tables provide the
pounds of amine for a system fill,
estimated pounds of annual
make-up amine, estimated annual
cost of antifoam, operator-provided
cost of annual chemical additives,
and operator-estimated cost of
corrosion maintenance in a MDEA/
DEA system for a 300 gpm facility.
Payback calculations are based on
antifoam and amine costs at the
time of the trial.
These cost estimates and payback
calculations do not take into
account the lost revenue for unit
down time or additional opera-
tional expenses, such as filter
cartridges, which would further
reduce the payback time. The reve-
nue of any additional gas
processed, total sweet gas sold to
the pipeline (treated and bypassed),
was also not included.
The operator also estimated first-
year and annual operating expenses
for an existing 300 gpm facility
upgraded from MDEA/DEA blend
to Ucarsol solvent, based on
MDEA/DEA blend operational
experience and trial experience (see
Table 5). An existing facility would
require the removal of the MDEA/
DEA blend and an initial fill of the
solvent. All other costs — make-up
amine, antifoam, chemical additives
and the estimated cost of corrosion
maintenance — remain the same
for the cost comparison. The cost of

www.eptq.com Gas 2013 39

dow.indd 5 13/03/2013 11:47

 the removed amine disposal was
not included, as the operator was
able to move the amine to another
facility using the MDEA/DEA
blend. The first-year expenses, in
this case, are higher for the solvent
to pay for the amine conversion,
but the expenditure is recovered by
the higher annual cost for the
MDEA/DEA blend for antifoam,
chemical additives and the esti-
mated cost of corrosion
maintenance. The operator
concluded that the payback for the
existing case is 1.7 years (see Table
5).
Conclusions
Based on the experience of the
operator, who has used a 80 wt%
MDEA/20 wt% DEA blend for over
10 years, the data collected during
the trial and over 18 months of
operation, it was concluded that the
long-term operational cost of
Ucarsol solvent has a payback that
supports its use in their facilities.
Through the end of 2012, the opera-
tor has upgraded 10 facilities and
continues to find opportunities to
upgrade additional facilities to
Ucarsol solvent to reduce operating
costs.
The requirement and cost for the
continuous addition of chemical
additives (corrosion inhibitors and
bicine “killer”) to control corrosion
from DEA degradation products
and bicine versus no chemical addi-
tives for the Ucarsol solvent was a
significant deciding factor for the
operator. The trial results and over
18 months of operation indicating
non-detectable bicine and low iron
concentrations in the Ucarsol
solvent further justified the
upgrades for the operator.
Foaming in Unit 1 with the
MDEA/DEA blend was an issue,
especially when the system was
loaded heavily with sour gas feed.
This could have been seen as just a
result of the system/equipment
design, since the two units in the
trial were not identical; however,
Unit 1 has performed better since
upgrading to Ucarsol solvent for 18
months and is now treating up to
110 MMscfd without significant
foaming issues. Less severe foam-
ing events have resulted in less
40 Gas 2013
dow.indd 6
make-up amine, reducing operating
costs.
The higher frequency of filter
changes in the MDEA/DEA system
is likely due to the degradation
products and bicine causing a
weakening of the iron carbonate
protective layer. Since upgrading
the amine in the two units, filter
changes are now once every two to
three months rather than monthly
or shorter. Operating costs due to
these changes have been reduced
too (the difference in filter change
expense was not used in the opera-
tional cost comparisons). Units 1
and 2’s facility corrosion mainte-
nance has also been reduced over
the past 18 months since the
upgrade according to the operator,
further reducing operational costs.
The operator has been able to
increase treated gas production
through the two units due to the
lower sweet gas CO2 concentration
produced after the upgrade. More
sour gas can be processed in the
gas treating system to a lower CO2
concentration, allowing more sour
gas to be bypassed and blended to
meet pipeline gas specifications.
This increase in revenue was not
included in the operational cost
comparisons, but would further
reduce the operational costs and
payback time. However, the results
for another facility can vary widely,
depending on the facility and
equipment condition, sour gas, and
many other conditions and factors.
The operator determined the
payback for a new 300 gpm facility
is 0.36 years and the payback for an
existing 300 gpm facility is 1.7
years. This cost evaluation is
supported even when the estimates
of higher antifoam and make-up
rates are removed and maintenance
corrosion costs eliminated, result-
ing in a payback of 0.55 years for a
new 300 gpm facility.
Evaluating the data collected
during the two-month side-by-side
trial shows the advantages of
Ucarsol solvent over a MDEA/
DEA blend (see Table 6).
UCARSOL and UCARSEP are trademarks of The
Dow Chemical Company.
References
1 International Energy Agency, World Energy
Outlook 2012.
2 Martell A E, Smith R M, Motekaitis R J,
Critically Selected Stability Constants of Metal
Complexes Database, NIST Standard Reference
Database 46, Version 7, US Department of
Commerce, 2003.
3 Kohl A L, Nielsen R B, Gas Purification,
Fifth Ed, Gulf Publishing Company, 1997, Ch 3,
Solution Degradation, 232-242.
4 Polderman L D, Steele A B, Why
diethanolamine breaks down in gas treating
service, Oil and Gas Journal, Vol 54, 30 July
1956, 206-214.
5 Kennard M L, Meisen A, Control DEA
degradation, Hydro. Process., Vol 59, No. 4, April
1980, 103-106.
6 Kennard M L, Meisen A, Gas
chromatographic technique for analyzing
partially degraded diethanolamine solutions, J.
of Chromatography, Vol 267, 1983, 373-380.
7 Kennard M L, Meisen A, Mechanisms and
kinetics of diethanolamine corrosion, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundamentals, Vol 24, 1985, 129-140.
8 Kennard M L, Meisen A, DEA degradation
mechanism, Hydro. Process., Vol 61, No 10,
October 1982, 105-108.
9 Blanc C, Grall M, Demarais G, The Part
Played by Degradation Products in the Corrosion
of Gas Sweetening Plants Using DEA and MDEA,
Laurence Reid Gas Conditioning Conference
Proceedings, University of Oklahoma, Norman
OK, 1982.
10 Kim C J, Sartori G, Kinetics and mechanism
of diethanolamine degradation in aqueous
solutions containing carbon dioxide, Int. J. of
Chem. Eng. Prog., October 1984, 64-71.
11 American Petroleum Institute (API),
Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine
Units, API Recommended Practice 945, 1st Ed,
August 1990, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC.
12 Nielsen R B, Lewis K R, McCullough J G,
Hansen D A, Controlling Corrosion in Amine
Treating Plants, Laurence Reid Gas Conditioning
Conference Proceedings, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1995.
13 Seagraves J Quinian M, Conley J,
Fundamentals — Gas Sweetening, Laurence
Reid Gas Conditioning Conference Proceedings,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 2010.
Robert L (Rob) Dotson is a Senior Gas
Conditioning Specialist with Dow Oil, Gas
& Mining, with over 32 years’ experience
designing, operating and managing world-
scale facilities in the chemical and oil and gas
industries. He provides technical consultation
for refineries, natural gas and unconventional
gas treating facilities, natural gas liquids
(NGL) treating facilities and power plant CO2
capture (CCS) facilities around the world. He
holds a degree in chemical engineering from
the University of Florida, and is a licensed
Professional Engineer in Texas.
www.eptq.com
13/03/2013 11:47