See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268151496

Improvement of TEG regeneration in natural

gas dehydration using a hydrocarbon solvent

Conference Paper · September 2010

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4420.8324

CITATIONS READS

0 375

5 authors, including:

Saviz Baktash Mohsen Abbasi

University of Isfahan Persian Gulf University
9 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 489 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. R. Rahimpour
Shiraz University
399 PUBLICATIONS 4,629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oily wastewater treatment View project

Green Fuel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saviz Baktash on 12 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Improvement of TEG regeneration in natural gas dehydration using a
hydrocarbon solvent

M.S.Baktash1,R.Khorramirad,M.Abbasi, Kh.Paymooni, M.R.Rahimpour

Chemical and Petroleum Engineering School, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71345, Iran;
Tel. +98 913 3215477, email:msbaktash@gmail.com; Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
School, Mollasadra street, Shiraz, Iran; fax:6473575

Abstract
The natural gas dehydration is an important operation in the gas processing and conditioning
industry. The standard method for natural gas dehydration is absorption of water using
triethylene glycol (TEG). TEG is used in about 95% of the glycol dehydration units for
natural gas streams. Glycol dehydration units conventionally consist of a contactor, and a
regenerator. An alternate approach for the enhancement of stripping column performance is
the use of stripping agent. In this approach a volatile hydrocarbon liquid is added into the
glycol regeneration system instead of stripping gas. Reduction of TEG loss and its
regeneration is one of the most important processes in gas refinery industry because it is an
expensive chemical component. In this work Farrashband Gas Refinery has been simulated
by use of a software simulator and TEG purity and loss in conventional unit has been
compared with new approach. The simulation results shows that using hydrocarbon solvent
enhances TEG purity and reduces its loss to atmosphere.

Keywords: TEG loss; Gas dehydration; TEG regeneration; stripping column; Distillation

1.Introduction
Natural gas dehydration is an important operation in the gas processing and conditioning
industry. In this process, water vapor is eliminated from natural gas streams for domestic
usage or other downstream gas processes. The level of water vapor in natural gas should be
maintained below a certain value to prevent hydrate formation and minimization of corrosion
in transportation pipelines.[1-3] The standard method for natural gas dehydration is by the
absorption of water using triethylene glycol. The glycols are effective liquid desiccants
because of their high hygroscopic property, low vapor pressure, high boiling point, and low
solubility in natural gas. The four types of glycols that have been used for natural gas
dehydration are ethylene glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG), triethylene glycol (TEG),
and tetraethylene glycol (T4EG).[4] TEG is used in about 95 % of the glycol dehydration
units for natural gas streams. Glycol dehydration units conventionally consist of a contactor
and a regenerator. An alternate approach for the enhancement of reconcentrator performance
is the use of stripping agent. In this approach a volatile hydrocarbon liquid is added to the
glycol regeneration system. The hydrocarbon increases the volatility of water in the solution
of water + TEG. Smith and Skiff [5] reported that this type of process can achieve
compositions of over 99.99 % with triethylene glycol, resulting in potential dry gas with the
water dew points range in (-73.3 to -95.5)°C.
In this study the gas dehydration treatments have been simulated by use of a software
simulator. The absorbent material was triethylene glycol (TEG) and the selected fluid
package was PR. The processes were simulated in this work for gas dehydration includes:
conventional process, stripping gas process and stripping agent process and TEG
regeneration and other parameters have been compared.
1
2. Stripping agent selection
Toluene and isooctane (2,2,4-trimethyl pentane) are used as entrainers in the stripping
columns of natural gas dehydration units[6,7 ].Knowledge of the vapor-liquid equilibrium
(VLE) data is necessary for accurate design and simulation of stripping columns. Water
volatility versus Toluene mole fraction and Isooctane mole fraction has been shown in
Figures 1(a, b). The results indicate that water volatility is increased by the mole fraction of
stripping agent and Isooctane mole fraction is less than Toluene mole fraction for the
volatility of water [8].

3500

3000

2500
Water volatility

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Toluene m ole fraction

Figure1 (a): Water volatility versus Toluene mole fraction

1400
1200
Water volatility

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Isooctane m ole fraction

Figure1 (b): Water volatility versus Isooctane mole fraction

2
3. Simulation

3. 1. Conventional process
A simplified flow diagram of a typical triethylene glycol dehydration plant for natural gas
service is shown in Figure 2. The process is quite simple. After flowing through a separator
(not shown in the diagram) and through a knockout section to remove entrained liquid, the
feed gas then flows up into the absorption section of the contactor, which typically contains
between four and ten trays. The concentrated glycol, normally containing 0.5 to 2% water, is
fed to the top of the contactor and absorbs water from the gas while flowing downward
through the column. The dried gas leaves the top of the contactor. It may then pass through a
scrubber which removes any entrained glycol droplets before the product gas enters the
pipeline.
Rich glycol flowing out of the bottom of the contactor typically contains 3 to 7% water and
must be reconcentrated before it can be reused for water absorption. This flow then enters to
the heat exchanger and this raises the temperature of the rich glycol, which heated by heat
exchange with hot lean glycol. It then enters a reduced pressure flash tank where dissolved
hydrocarbon gases are released. The released gases are recovered and used for fuel or other
purposes (not shown in diagram). After flashing, the rich glycol passes through a second
glycol/glycol heat exchanger where it is further heated, and finally enters the reconcentrator
column above a short packed or tray section. Efficient recovery of heat from the
reconcentrator products is necessary to minimize fuel consumption in the reboiler [9].

Figure 2: Simulated traditional natural gas dehydration unit

3. 2. Stripping agent process

An alternate approach for the enhancement of reconcentrator performance is the use of an
azeotrope former [9]. Figure 3 depicts the simulated diagram of stripping agent process for
natural gas dehydration. In this approach a volatile hydrocarbon liquid is fed into the glycol
regeneration system. The hydrocarbon increases the volatility of water in the solution and,
after vaporization, acts as stripping gas in the lean glycol stripper. Mixed vapors from this
stripper flow through the glycol reboiler and the rich glycol stripper, which is refluxed with
aqueous condensate to minimize glycol losses. Vapors from the rich glycol stripper are totally

3
condensed and collected in a separator. Condensed hydrocarbon liquids form an immiscible
phase which is recycled to the regeneration system [9].
The liquid is separated from the condensed water in a three phase separator and is recycled to
the regeneration columns. The stripping medium can be introduced externally or it can be
absorbed from the natural gas (e.g. BTEX, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene). Under
some circumstances, surplus of aromatics can be recovered as a condensate product from the
stripping agent process. There are several stripping agent processes in operation, which
achieve very low water dew points in dried gas [10].

Figure 3: Simulated stripping agent process for natural gas dehydration

4. Results and discussion

A comparison analysis based on simulation calculations can be valuable for comparing the
efficiency of different process principles. But the traditional problem normally brakes down
to a comparison of investment cost, operation cost and reliability of available offers. As
shown in Table 1, by addition of Isooctane and Toluene (stripping agent) TEG mass fraction
increases from 0.98273(conventional process) to 0.99603 and 0.99146 respectively.
Therefore we can conclude that Isooctane has better performance than Toluene for TEG
regeneration of natural gas dehydration.

4
Table1: Comparison of the TEG mass fraction for (a): Conventional Process (b): Stripping
agent with Isooctane (c): Stripping agent with Toluene.

(a) (b) (c)

5. Conclusion
Models for the most used glycol regeneration processes have been developed in the process
simulation program with the PR equation of state. The results of simulations show that the
concentration of TEG in recycle stream increases for modified natural gas dehydration
processes. Generally, the stripping agent process is better than conventional process for
natural gas dehydration process and TEG regeneration but the economical estimations should
be considered.

5
 References

[1] Campbell, J. M. Gas Conditioning and Processing: The Equipment Module; Campbell
Petroleum Series: Norman, OK, 1992; Vol. 2.

[2] Pearce, R. L.; Sivalls, C. R. Fundamentals of gas dehydration, design and operation with
glycol solutions. In Gas Conditioning Conference; University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK,
1984.

[3] Grizzle, P. L. Glycol-Reboiler Emissions. 2. Glycol mass-balance method for estimating

scores high for estimating BTEX, VOC emissions. Oil Gas J. 1993, 91, 61.

[4] Ikoku, C. U. Natural Gas Engineering: A Systems Approach; Petroleum Publishing

Company: Houston, 1980.

[5] Smith, R. S.; Skiff, T. B. Drizo Gas Dehydration, Solution for Low Dew Points of
Aromatics Emissions. In Proc. Laurance Reid Gas Cond. Conf.; University of Oklahoma:
Norman, OK, 1990;, p 61.

[6] Manning, F. S.; Thompson, R. E. Oilfield Processing of Petroleum: Natural Gas;

PennWell: Tulsa, OK, 1991; Vol. 1, p 149.

[7] Ryba, A. Reduction in Emissions and Energy Use at Mackowice Natural Gas
Dehydration Facility. Diploma Thesis, Faculty of Drilling, Oil, and Gas, AGH University of
Science and Technology, Cracow Trondheim, June 2005.

[8] Khosravanipour A., Rahimpour M. R., Shariati A.; Vapor-Liquid Equilibria of Water +
Triethylene Glycol (TEG) and Water + TEG + Toluene at 85 kPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data,2009

[9] Kohl, Arthur L., Nielsen, Richard B., Gas Purification, Fifth edition, Gulf Publishing
Company, the United States of America, (1997).

[10] Smith, R. S., and Skiff, T. B., “Drizo Gas Dehydration, Solution for Low Dew Points
Aromatics Emissions”, Proc. Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conf, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK, pp. 61. (1990).

View publication stats