SPE 107292
The MEG (Mono Ethylene) Injection Gas Dehydration Process Evaluation for the
Margarita Field Development
Moises Alfredo Vergara Contreras and Nicolas Foucart, Repsol YPF
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The objective of the study is to select the gas
dehydration process system within the Margarita Field
Development Project based on MEG (MONO
ETHYLENE) Injection with Mechanical Refrigeration
and compare it with the Glycol Dehydration Process
System, from the technological and economical point of
view.
The dehydration process based on TEG is the most
common process for natural gas dehydration; it is an
efficient technology and its operation is very well known.
In order to reduce the CAPEX and OPEX of the Project,
the operator has studied potential process options. One
way to optimize the gas dehydration process is by
simplifying and combining it with other processes, which
is the case when considering the combined MEG
injection with mechanical refrigeration, a common
practice in the Industry.
The scope of this report covers:
o Estimate of the downstream and utility
equipments as required (glycol loss, glycol rate
recirculation, electrical requirements, etc)
o Cost Estimate (OPEX / CAPEX).
o Explanation of uncertainties and risks that may
be associated in applying the dehydration
process on this particular application, and steps
(if required) to eliminate those uncertainties.
o To take experience of similar plants with similar
requirement.
The MEG Injection together with a Dew Point Plant is
able to dehydrate the natural gas, because the chiller
unit operates at low temperatures and it permits the
water content of the gas to be condensed and removed
in "cold separation", but this process requires inhibitor
injection in order to avoid hydration formation, being
glycol the usual inhibitor. Removing the Contactor Tower
and changing TEG by MEG has little impact in the Dew
Point Plant design. The additional power required in the
propane compressor is compensated in the glycol pump
which is lower power consumption because the MEG
injection rate is lower than the TEG one.
The different aspects evaluated between MEG Injection
and Contactor Tower with TEG, are favorable toward the
MEG Injection as:
o CAPEX: FOB Cost.
o MEG Injection saves MEG regeneration unit
which is smaller and lighter.
o Elimination of TEG contactors will simplify the
plant, reduce installation cost and avoid large
heavy vessels with transportation constraints.
o MEG injection is easier to regenerate than TEG
and alleviates environmental issues with BTEX
emission.
After taking in consideration all the points in favor of the
MEG Injection, it is recommended to install it in the Gas
Treatment Plant.
INTRODUCTION
The Margarita Project calls for a field development,
covering the flow lines, main header, slug catcher, gas
dehydration and dew point control, condensate
stabilization, and water treatment. This system is known
as the Gas Treatment Plant (GTP), which shall produce
a gas stream and condensate.
The project has specifications to sell gas, in such way it
should select the process that allows to fullfil with the
required condition. The gas sale specifications are
temperature dew point 32 F and 600 psig and 7 lb
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
installed in the project. One is The Dehydrators with
TEG which is the most-common equipment to remove
water from gas and the other one is MEG (Mono
Ethylene Glycol) Injection with Mechanical
Refrigeration.
The deshydrators with TEG is the typical gas
dehydration process where the gas feed enters at the
bottom of tower glycol contactor; the regenerated lean
glycol is pumped to the top tray of the contactor. The
glycol absorbs water as it flows down through the
contactor counter current to the gas flow.
The glycol is regenerated by a glycol regeneration
package. Usually a separate regeneration package is
provided for each train.
The Figure # 1 shows a typical Glycol Dehydration
Process using TEG.
Figura # 1
Other altertative for the dehydration process is MEG
Injection which has potential possibility to simplify the
process and that could be technically and economically
advantageous.
The GTP Plant requires the dew point plant to meet the
sales gas specification. The gas dew point is controlled
by the combination of the low temperature and the
separation of condensed hydrocarbons to obtain gas
selling specification. It is necessary that the gas dew
point be reduced to below - 40 F at 1000 psig. The unit
can remove water with heavier components from the gas
separated in the cold separator, but the problem is the
hydrate formation in the pipes and different equipments
due to low temperature. The low temperature of natural
gas process requires the injection of a hydrate inhibitor
to avoid hydrate formation.
The proposal process uses glycol injection to prevent
hydrate formation, a simplified flow scheme for glycol
injection and recovery for low temperature separation
using a chiller unit which is shown in Figure #2. The
arrangement and operating conditions are typical, but
many variations are possible.
Firstable, feed gas enters an inlet separator which
removes free condensate and water. This reduces the
load on the glycol regeneration facilities and is
particularly important if free water is present. Lean glycol
(70 to 80 % by weight glycol solution) is injected
upstream of the gas / gas heat exchanger, just before
the temperature falls below at which hydrates might
form. Continuous mixing of the gas and glycol solution is
necessary as the gas temperature is lowered and water
condenses from the vapor phase. Sufficient glycol is
injected at this point, also to provide hydrate inhibition
downstream of the chiller unit.
Figura # 2
The MEG Injection presents the following advantages:
o Elimination of TEG contactors will simplify the
plant, reduce cost and avoid large heavy vessels
with transportation constraints.
o MEG injection will easily meet the water dew-
point spec.
o MEG injection is easier to regenerate than TEG
and alleviates environmental issues with BTEX
emission.
o MEG injection regenerate unit is cheaper,
simpler, smaller and lighter.
o Being more environmentally friendly as it is a
closed system.
DESCRIPTION PROCESS
The Gas Dehydration Process with TEG (Base Case)
As can be seen in Figure #3, the working condition of the
dew point plant is below 10 F and crosses the
hydration form line. Thus a glycol dehydration plant is
required to removes the water content from the natural
gas prior to the dew point plant preventing therefore
hydrate formation.
The GTP has two modules with a capacity of 6
MMsm3/d (212 MMscfd) each one. The dehydration
process uses TEG, having a contactor tower and one
regeneration unit per module. Table #1 shows
dimensions and weight of the main equipment.
SPE 107292
Figure # 3
Several commercial suppliers can fulfill the equipment
specifications and the delivery requirements as this
process is a very well known one.
The MEG Injection Process (Alternative Case)
If the contactor tower is removed from the process, the
water present in the natural gas would condensate in the
chiller unit and would be removed in the cold separator
but hydrate formation could occur due to the operation at
low temperatures, requiring therefore the injection of a
hydrate inhibitor. Figure # 3 shows the condition of the
operation that crosses the hydrate form line.
MEG, DEG, TEG and Methanol are used for hydrate
inhibition. MEG is the most common because of its lower
cost, lower viscosity and lower solubility in liquid
hydrocarbons.
Methanol has a lower viscosity than glycol and is
therefore easier to pump and transfer through pipelines.
When injected, however, a substantial part of the
methanol is dispersed in the vapor phase with the gas
and is therefore able to reach parts of the system that
glycol cannot reach. A considerable part of the
3
methanol, remains in the vapor phase and will not
condense.
When the contactor tower is not considered, the water
content of gas at 130 F and 1064 psia is 110 lb/ MMscf
and the additional flow water entering to dew point plant
would be of 972.00 lb / h per train.
The additional flow of water not removed is small. As a
matter of fact, according to balance energy of the
Conceptual Engineering, the inlet feed of gas to the dew
point plant is 538,596.00 lb/h that it is below 0,01 % over
total. Figure # 4 shows the typical dehydration process
with MEG injection and mechanical refrigeration.
Figura # 4
TECHNOLOGICAL ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS
The present analysis reviewed the dehydration process,
the manufactory proposal and similar process exiting in
areas, which were used as a basis for the comparison of
different technological and economical aspects. The
selection criteria used for comparison are the following:
o Performance Dew Point Plant.
o Glycol losses.
o Capital Cost for Installation (CAPEX)
o Transportation facilities
o The technological risk associated
The Dew Point Plant Performance.
A process simulation was conducting to model the GTP
Gas Dehydration Process with TEG (Base Case); this
simulation was modified removing the contactor tower to
evaluate the effect in the chillier unit and the propane
refrigeration. As a result of the removal of the contactor
tower, the propane compressor has an increment in
power consumption of 34 HP, while the increase in the
thermal load in the chillier unit is 0, 5 MM BTU/h.
Another process difference is the glycol circulation pump
specifications: the TEG case has a rate of 50 gpm and it
requires 70 HP; which is bigger than the MEG case that
has a rate of 20 gpm and it requires 30 HP. Table # 2
shows the total power required for both, the basic case
and the alterative case.
4 SPE 107292

The recent experience has found in similar plants, with

two modules with the treatment capability of 7 MMsm3/d
(247 MMscfd), the dehydration process uses MEG in the
two existing regeneration systems, the loss of glycol is in
the order of one barrel per day. Based on this datum, it
is assumed that the MEG reposition is 365 barrels per
year.

Table #3 shows yearly operation cost of both systems.

Power Requirements.
MEG Injection is by far cheaper than the Contactor
Tower with TEG by a difference of 209, 921 $/year, just
The energy balance for both processes has the same
power requirement. There is a small increase in the by reposition.
propane compressor but the MEG Injection case
requires less power in the glycol circulation pump.

The Impact in Dew Point Plan.

The vertical type cold separator, to separate liquid and

gas, would need to be replaced by a three phase
horizontal type separator of higher liquid-liquid
separation efficiency, giving a sligltly cost increase.

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 Gas Dehydration Process with TEG

The principal glycol loss points are:

o In the gas from the glycol contactor.

o In the flash gas from the glycol flash drum.
o In the overheads from the glycol still column.

Normally the glycol losses are dominated by the

vaporization losses in the contactor. Glycol losses with
the product gas can occur by vaporization. A properly
designed and constructed contactor should have losses
less than 20 litres per million Nm3 (st). Reference 2. Based on the equipment list and the cost estimate
developed, the dehydration with contactor tower process
The estimate of glycol losses for the GTP is 560 Barrels is more expensive than the MEG injection process by
per year. 4,07 MM $, as depicted in Figure N 5.

The MEG Injection Process

The glycol losses in the cold separator may be

significant due to poor design or unfavourable operating
conditions of the condensate / glycol separator. In a
properly designed separator, inadequate pre-heating of
the condensate/glycol feed is a potential cause for poor
Figure # 5
separation.
SPE 107292
Transportation Facilities
The GTP location is not of easy access; the way is
mountainous and has irregular and narrow roads which
are not paved, about 113 km long, presenting
transportation problem. Large trucks carrying heavy
loads can become stranded onsharp turns due to the
washouts. The roads have limit of load equal to 120 ton
by 20 meters long.
The weight of MEG regeneration unit is below 80 ton
and the size is of 4 meters x 14 meters.
The TEG regeneration unit may weight over 120 ton and
the design should be considered by the road limitation
which could have an impact in the cost.
The associated technological risk
Many suppliers are able to provide both process
equipments whose design is very well known. The ex-
works delivery time for both processes is approximately
10 months.
The dehydrators with TEG are the most-common
equipment to remove water from gas and they have
been installed in more than 38,000 dehydration
processes worldwide and most of them use triethylene
glycol (TEG).
The dehydration process with the dew point plant and
MEG injection is less common. In areas near existent
plants, there is evidence that the dehydration process is
able to be installed and obtain good operation at low
cost. The condition and size unit are similar to the one
required for the Margarita Development Project.
ANALYSIS
Table 5 shows different aspects compared between the
MEG (MEG) Injections and Contactor Tower where
the MEG injection is favorable. The characteristics are
as follows:
5
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
It would be recommended to install the MEG Injection
based dehydration process in the Margarita
Development Project where water content in gas is
condensed in the chillier unit and it is removed in cold
separation, requiring an inhibitor injection to avoid
hydrate formation.
When the specification of the sales gas called for dew
point control, the process requires low temperatures and
can normally be used for dehydration of gas with MEG to
prevent hydration formation.
And when the gas sales do not require a dew point
specification, it is recommended to use the contactor
tower with regeneration TEG, because a dew point plant
(Mechanical Refrigeration) is more expensive than the
traditional dehydration process.
REFERENCES
[1] Bechtel Final Report. Conceptual Engineering
Study for the Development of Margarita Field -
Bolivia. June, 2005.
[2] Gas Process Suppliers Association (GPSA), 1994,
Engineering Data Book.
[3] Ingeniera de Instalaciones de Superficie - Bolivia
Road Access & Logistics. Project N Document
MGR12-PF-DT-GEN-NT-GE-001.
[4] Sloan, E.D.,Jr.,1991, Natural Gas Hydrates,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol 43.
[5] Kohl, A.L., and Riesenfeld,F.C., 1985, Gas
Purification, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
TX.
[6] Minkkinen, A., Larue, J. and Patel, S., Methanol
Gas Treating Scheme Offers Economics,
Versatility, The Oil and Gas Journal, June 1, 1992.
[7] Campbell, John M., Gas Conditioning and
Processing, Vols. I &II, 6th Edition, 2nd printing
(1988), Campbell Petroleum Series.
[8] Minkkinen, A., Larue, J. and Patel, S., Methanol
Gas Treating Scheme Offers Economics,
Versatility, The Oil and Gas Journal, June 1, 1992,
p. 65.
[9] AMERICAN STANDARDS, Glycol-type gas
dehydration units API Spec 12GDU Issued by:
American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street
Northwest, Washington DC 20005, USA.