Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2.

July 2018

A Comparison of Natural Gas Dehydration Methods

Ebrahiem E. Ebrahiem*, Ibrahim A. Ashour, M.M. Nassar, Abdel Aziz A.
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University
*[email protected]

Abstract

The allowable moisture content of transmission natural gas ranges from 4 to 7 pounds per MMSCF (64–112
mg/m3). Water content may leads to solid hydrate formation, corrosion of pipelines & process plants particularly in
the presence of CO2 or H2S, slugging and erosion problems in the flowlines. Also, it leads to specific volume
increasing, heating value decreasing and freezing in cryogenic and refrigerated absorption plants. Dehydration of
natural gas is necessary in order to obtain a water dew point below operating temperature to avoid water
condensation and subsequent free water on the system and hydrates formation. A comparison between different
widely industry methods of natural gas dehydration is made in order to choose a method for achieving the required
water dew point of export gas suitable for North Africa gas project. These methods are adsorption (using solid
desiccants), absorption (using liquid desiccants), dehydration (by CaCl2, expansion refrigeration and membrane
permeation). The comparison is made according to their energy demand and suitability for use in North African
countries. At the central process facilities of North Africa project, flowline arrival pressure and temperature may be
in the range 54 to 60 bar and 25 C to 50 C (in winter to summer) respectively. In North Africa Gas Project at
south Tunisia, the required water dew-point specification of export gas in field is -12°C at any pressure. As a
comparison result it was found that it is recommended to use a TEG (Triethylene Glycol) dehydration method due
to many advantages.

Keywords: Natural Gas, Dehydration, Dehydration Methods, hydrate formation, absorption plane.

1- Introduction

A main sources of energy in human life is Natural gas. It becomes increasingly important alternative fossil fuel due
to the depletion of crude oil. Before consumers use, natural gas must be processed or refined. Gas dehydration is
one of the most important operations in gas processing to eliminate water vapor associated with natural gas [1]. The
presence of water vapor in natural gas cause problems such as hydrate formation or freezing (which results pipe
plugging), Corrosion (especially in the presence of H2S and CO2) and reduction of combustion efficiency [2].
Netusil and Ditl. made a comparison between three methods for natural gas dehydration. These methods are
absorption by triethylene glycol, adsorption on solid desiccants and condensation. He found that energy
consumption under low pressure for the refrigeration method was the most demanding one and the absorption
method was less demanding on the whole pressure scale [3]. The North Africa Gas Project field development
consists of eight wells, a gathering system and a Central Processing Facility (CPF) at which stream production
from the various fields were separated into condensate and dew pointed gas products for export. The condensate
will be exported via the existing Trans Saharan Pipeline Company (TRAPSA) oil pipeline to the La Skhira oil
terminal near Gabes. The gas will be exported to a tie-in point at the LPG Project facilities from where it will be
transported via a 320 km gas pipeline to Gabes and treated in a dedicated Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
extraction facility to commercial specification required for end user consumption. The required water dew point in
the export gas of North Africa Gas Project is -12 oC at any pressure.
In the present work a comparison of all gas dehydration available methods applied in the industry to choose a
suitable gas dehydration method for North Africa Gas Project gas development project in the south of Tunisia to

- 106 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

achieve the export gas specifications. The comparison based on energy costs, market conditions (materials cost,
consumables costs), technology evolution with time and company experience with a certain technology.

1-1. Dehydration methods

1-1-1. Absorption Dehydration using Glycol
Glycol possess the criteria for liquids suitable for absorbing water from gas in commercially viable processes. Due
to its relatively high volatility, the use of monoethylene glycol (MEG) is limited to injection into a wet gas stream
[4]
for hydrate suppression rather than water dewpoint depression by contact with gas in an absorber tower . Other
hand, diethylene glycol (DEG), triethylene glycol (TEG) and tetraethylene glycol (TREG) possess suitable
properties for dewpoint depression i.e. dehydration through gas/liquid contact. However, the vast majority of the
glycol dehydrators in service use TEG. DEG may be cheaper to buy in certain markets but when handling and
other labour costs are accounted for there is little if any saving. Compared to TEG, DEG exhibits greater losses in
carry-over, provides less dewpoint depression and regeneration to high concentrations is more difficult [5]. TREG is
more viscous and more expensive than the other processes. It exhibits a lower vapor pressure which reduces
absorber carry-over losses. It can be used in high temperature applications where dehydration of gases at
[6]
temperatures in excess of 60°C is required. Additionally, TREG is not as readily available as TEG . TEG is the
most widely used and easily available desiccant for dehydration units. For the reasons outlined above the most
suitable liquid desiccant for use at North Africa Gas Project is TEG. Property data for TEG and other glycols are
shown in Table (1) and Figure (1) [7].

Table 1: Physical Properties of Glycols

Mono-ethylene Diethylene Tri-ethylene Tetra-ethylene

Glycol (MEG) Glycol (DEG) Glycol (TEG) Glycol (TREG)
Formula C2H6O2 C4H10O3 C6H14O4 C6H18O5
Molecular Weight 62.1 106.1 150.2 194.2
Boiling Point at 760 mmHg - °C 197.3 244.8 285.5 314.0
Vapor Pressure at 25°C - mmHg 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Vapor Pressure at 50°C - mmHg 0.62 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Density @ 25°C kg/m3 1110 1113 1119 1120
Density @ 60°C kg/m3 1085 1088 1092 1092
Freezing point - °C -13 -8 -7 -5.5
Pour Point - °C - -54 -58 -41
Viscosity @ 25°C - cP 16.5 28.2 37.3 44.6
Viscosity @ 60°C - cP 4.68 6.99 8.77 10.2
Surface Tension (25°C) dyne/cm 47 44 45 45
Refractive Index (25°C) 1.430 1.446 1.454 1.457
Specific Heat (25°C) kJ/(kg. K) 2.43 2.30 2.22 2.18
Flash Point - °C (PMCC) 116 124 177 204

- 107 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

Figure -1 Basic Flow scheme for Glycol Dehydration

M.M. Ghiasi et al. studied the triethylene glycol (TEG) purity in natural gas dehydration units using fuzzy neural
network, developed of an intelligent model based on the well-proven standard feed-forward back-propagation
neural network for accurate prediction of TEG purity based on operating conditions of reboiler. He found that
reducing the pressure in the reboiler at a constant temperature results in higher glycol purity [8]. M. A. Satyro and
Schoegglb studied temperature change from isenthalpic expansion of aqueous triethylene glycol mixtures for
natural gas dehydration. They found that for typical natural gas dehydration conditions, the depressurization of rich
TEG solutions from 7000 kPa to 440 kPa under isenthalpic conditions has a temperature increase in the order of
1.9 K. The isenthalpic expansion across the valve was modeled with a cubic equation of state and classic quadratic
mixing rule with interaction parameters determined based only on VLE data. The model predicted a temperature
increase in the order of 2.5K for all mixtures studied in this work [9].

1-1-2. Other Glycol Options

Other options to enhance glycol purity to achieve a high degree of water dewpoint depression include operation of
the regenerator under vacuum, the proprietary Drizo process and the proprietary Coldfinger process.

1-1-2-1. Stripping gas and Vacuum

At boiling conditions of 1 atm and 204 ºC the maximum lean glycol mass concentration will be 98.6%. If higher
concentration, to meet the dewpoint specification is required, two different modifications can be introduced (the
introduction of stripping gas to the regenerator or the regenerator operation at vacuum pressure) for lowering the
partial pressure of the water in the vapor space of the glycol reboiler and enhance glycol concentration. The uses of
stripping gas or the vacuum in the reboiler are the two most common methods for enhancement of the glycol
concentration [10]. For stripping gas, any inert gas is suitable and gas can be introduced directly in the reboiler or on
the packed unit between the reboiler and the surge tank. A less consume of gas is needed in case the second
arrangement is utilized [11]. M.M. Ghiasi et al. studied Rigorous models to optimize stripping gas rate in natural gas
dehydration units, found that based on the statistical analysis, an excellent match was noticed between the values
obtained from the predictive tools and the real data. The average absolute relative deviation percent (AARD %)
was determined to be lower than 0.01% [12].

- 108 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

1-1-2-2. DRIZO
At this process, a solvent (in general, mixture of 70% aromatic, 20% naphthenic and 10% paraffin hydrocarbons)
substitutes the stripping gas. This solvent vaporizes at reboiler temperature and is used as a stripping agent. Then,
when it leaves the tower from its top, it is condensed and pumped back previously separation on a three phase
vessel. The solvent and all BTEX compounds are condensed in this unit before the vapor is discharged to
atmosphere [13, 14].
Advantages: One of the more important advantages is that a high purity of TEG is performed (99.999 mass %) with
very high stripping flow rates and with little or no venting of hydrocarbons. Other advantage is that all BTEX
compounds can be recovered from the vapor flow preventing from being sent to the atmosphere. DRIZO
technology can be used to upgrade an existing unit in order to get higher glycol concentrations, or less BTEX and
CO2 emissions.
Disadvantages: A second particular solvent closed circuit is needed. This process has to be operated with some care
to obtain a consistency constant operation. In addition, it has taken into account that in case utilizing this
technology a license fee has to be paid.

1-1-2-3. Coldfinger

The Coldfinger process involves placing a cooling coil (Coldfinger condenser) in the vapor space above hot glycol
in the surge drum, and a collecting tray is placed below the coil to catch condensate. The collected
water/condensate from the Coldfinger condenser is collected in an accumulator from where it is periodically
pumped back to the regenerator to recover the glycol and drive off the water [15].
The process requires a coolant to condense the water vapor and achieve a claimed 99.9% lean glycol concentration
without the need for stripping gas. Also, a small amount of gas is required to be introduced to the surge drum to
replace the volume of condensate drained from the Coldfinger to avoid drawing a vacuum; this gas leaves through
the regenerator vent and effectively behaves like stripping gas although gas volumes may be less if carefully
controlled [16]. Advantages: With these process a TEG purity of 99.96 mass% can be achieved without the use of
stripping gas. Disadvantages: A cooling medium is needed and an additional set of pumps is required for the
condensed water-TEG mixture. M.R. Rahimpour et al. studied the performance of dehydration unit with Coldfinger
technology in gas processing plant; found that Dehydrating by Coldfinger technology represents an effective
method for removing water from natural gas [17]. A comparison between the different technologies is presented in
Table 2. The maximum TEG concentration and water dew point depression that can be achieved are presented in
the table below.
Table 2: TEG Technologies Comparison

Method [TEG] % m/m (max.) Water Dew Point depression [ºC]

Stripping 99.2 / 99.98 55 / 83
Vacuum 99.2 / 99.98 55 / 83
Drizo 99.99+ 100 / 122
Cold finger 99.96 55 / 83

- 109 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

Figure 2 Simplified flow diagram of Enhanced TEG regeneration system

1-1-3. Adsorption Dehydration using solid desiccant

There are several solid desiccants which possess physical characteristic to adsorb water from natural gas.
Generally, in a simple two-tower system, the dehydration systems consisting of two or more towers and associated
regeneration equipment (Figure 3). One tower is on stream adsorbing water from the gas while the other tower is
being regenerated and cooled. Hot gas is used to drive off the adsorbed water from the desiccant, after which the
tower is cooled with an unheated gas stream [18]. In general, the use of solids desiccant instead of liquids is
associated to very low water dew point requirements, applications with high H2S gases content, requirements of
simultaneous control of hydrocarbon and water dew point. At cryogenic or very low temperature it is usually
preferred the use of solid desiccants than inhibition, to avoid hydrate and/or ice formation [19]. The following three
types of solids desiccants are usually used:
- Silica Gel
Silica Gel basically, is a silicon dioxide, SiO2 and is used for gas and liquid dehydration. Also, it can be used for
hydrocarbon recovery from natural gas. Dew point of approximately -60 ºC can be achieved in hydrocarbon
removal units that are commonly called HRUs (Hydrocarbon Recovery Units) or SCUs (Short Cycle Units) [20].

- 110 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

Figure: 3 Basic Flow scheme for solid desiccants

- Alumina
Alumina (manufactured or natural) is a hydrated form of alumina oxide, Al2O3 which can be used for dehydration
of liquid and gases and get water dew points of about -70ºC [21].
Advantages: In comparison with molecular sieves, alumina needs less regeneration heat because its regeneration
temperature is lower. Disadvantages: Heavy hydrocarbons tend to get adsorbed in the alumina, making the alumina
impossible to be regenerated. Alumina can also react with mineral acid.

- Molecular Sieves
The molecular sieves are aluminosilicates (manufactured or naturals) having the highest selectivity and water
capacity and consequently can get the lowest values of water dew point. These technology is commonly used
upstream a NGL recovery plant, or in process where very cold temperatures are presents, to prevent hydrate and ice
formation [22]. Water dew point of about -100ºC is possible to achieve with molecular sieves. With same changes
on design or in operating parameters lower temperatures can be reached. To get a continuous process, a lead-lag
arrangement is required, while one bed is operating, the other bed is getting regenerated and cooled. Cycles
between 8 and 24 hours are usual. Molecular sieves are non-toxic, non-corrosive and available in different pore
sizes [23, 24]. Advantages: Main advantage is the lower water dew point than can be reached. Disadvantages: They
are usually more expensive than the other alternatives. Table 3 below indicates the main advantages &
disadvantages of solid desiccants

Table 3: Solid desiccants (Adsorption Dehydration) Advantages / Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages
 Dew points as low as –150 ºF.  Higher capital cost and higher pressure drops.
 They are less affected by small changes in gas  Desiccant poisoning by heavy HC’s, H2S, CO2, etc.
Pressure, temperature and flow rate.  Mechanical breaking of desiccant particles.
 They are less susceptible to corrosion or foaming.  High regeneration heat requirements and high utility costs.

- 111 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

H.A.A. Farag et al. studied the natural gas dehydration by desiccant materials, built up a pilot scale unit for natural
gas dehydration as simulation of actual existing plant for Egyptian Western Desert Gas Company (WDGC). The
effect of different operating conditions (water vapor concentration and gas flow rate) on dehydration of natural gas
were studied. They found that increasing water vapor concentration in inlet feed gas leads to a marked decrease in
dehydration efficiency, a higher inlet flow rate of natural gas decrease dehydration efficiency, increasing feed
pressure leads to higher dehydration efficiency [25].
M. Takbiri et al. studied Preparation of nanostructured activated alumina and hybrid alumina–silica by chemical
precipitation for natural gas dehydration, and found that the activated alumina was prepared from aluminum
isobutanolate has maximum pore volume and humidity sorption capacity. Addition of hybrid to precursor was
caused to exfoliate in structure of alumina and increasing of acidity and consequently the humidity sorption
increased [26]. C. Zou et al. studied the Failure analysis and faults diagnosis of molecular sieve in natural gas
dehydration, and found that there are four main aspects for the unavailability of the regenerative molecular sieve.
First, the pH values and surface alkalinity decrease. Second, the secondary pore structure diminished and blocked.
Third, the crystallite size increases, and the crystals agglomerated. Finally, not only the hydrocarbons adsorbed, but
also alcohols, ethers and carbonyl sulfides generated in pores [27].

1-1-4 Dehydration by expansion refrigeration,

The dehydration of natural gas can also achieved by refrigeration and/or cryogenic processing down to –100°C in
the presence of methanol hydrate and freeze protection. The condensed water and methanol streams decanted in the
cold process can be regenerated by conventional distillation or by a patented process called IFPEX-1[28]. In the
latter process illustrated in schematic form in Figure (4) a slip stream of water saturated feed gas strips essentially
all the methanol in the cold decanted methanol water stream originating in the cold process at feed gas conditions
to recirculate the methanol to the cold process. The water stream leaving the stripper contains generally less than
100 ppm wt. of methanol. No heat is required for the process and no atmospheric venting takes place [29, 30].

Figure-4 Basic Flow scheme for dehydration by Figure -5 Basic Flow scheme for dehydration by
expansion refrigeration CaCl2

1-1-5 Dehydration by CaCl2

The calcium chloride is a solid anhydrous that combinated with water generates a CaCl 2 brine solution. Fixed beds
of CaCl2 pellets are installed and the wetted gas flows through them [31]. Usually to increase unit capacity, 3 or 4
trays are installed below the solid bed to pre-contact the gas with the brine solution. In that way the upflows wetted
gas get previously in contact with the brine solution and is a little dehydrated before taking contact with the dry
- 112 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

solid desiccant[32]. Figure (5) below indicates the flow diagram of gas dehydration by CaCl2. Table 4 below indicates
the advantages & disadvantages of gas dehydration by CaCl2
Table 4: Dehydration by CaCl2 Advantages / Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages
CaCl2 dehydrators can be used on remote dry well The calcium chloride is a consumable desiccant to dehydrate natural gas. It
gas substituting glycol units on low rates. must be changed out periodically. In low capacity – high rate units this may be
as often as every 2-3 weeks. But the worst disadvantages, and what have made
this technology less popular, are the environmental problems of disposing of
the produced brine. Additionally, unit performance problems caused by gas
channeling in case pellets may became a “solid bridge” in the fixed bed.

M.M. Ghiasi et al. studied Estimation of the water content of natural gas dried by solid calcium chloride dehydrator
units, two mathematical-based models were developed to estimate approximate water content of natural gas dried
by calcium chloride dehydrator, found that the results of both presented models were excellent agreement with
reported data in the literature. The tools developed in this study can be of immense practical value for engineers to
have a quick check on water content of natural gas dried by calcium chloride [33].

1-1-6. Dehydration by membrane permeation,

Membranes can be used to separate gas stream components in natural gas such as water, CO2 and hydrocarbons
according to their permeabilities. Each gas component entering the separator has a characteristic permeation rate
that is a function of its ability to dissolve in and diffuse through the membrane [34]. The driving force for separation
of a gas component in a mixture is the difference between its partial pressure across the membrane [35]. As
pressurized feed gas flows into the metal shell of the separator, the fast gas component, such as water and CO 2,
permeate through the membrane [36]. This permeate is collected at a reduced pressure, while the non-permeate
stream, i.e., the dry natural gas, leaves the separator at a slightly lower pressure than the feed. The amount of
methane and other natural gas components in the permeate stream is dependent on pressure drop and the surface
area of the membranes. However, 5–10% of the feed stream is a realistic Figure 6. Dehydration by membrane
permeation is therefore normally only considered for plants that can make use of low pressure natural gas fuel [37].
H. Lin et al. studied the dehydration of natural gas by using membrane technology, found that membrane processes
with dry gas sweep on the permeate can be competitive with conventional glycol dehydrators for natural gas
dehydration, and that spiral-wound modules with good sweep/countercurrent efficiency can be made [38]. McKee et
al. compared diethanolamine PEA and membrane processes for a 1,000 psia gas-treating plant. For their base case,
the amine plant was found to be generally more economical for plant sizes greater than about 20 MMscfd [39]. S.
Shirazian, S.N. Ashrafizadeh studied LTA and ion-exchanged LTA zeolite membranes for dehydration of natural
gas, the effects of the molarity of KCl solutions and the repetition of ion-exchange on the membrane performance
were investigated to produce high-quality KA membranes suitable for dehydration of natural gas. Found that the
membrane ion-exchanged in 1 M KCl solution for two times had the best separation performance [40]. J. Zhao et al.
studied Fabricating graphene oxide-based ultrathin hybrid membrane for pervaporation dehydration via layer-by-
layer self-assembly driven by multiple interactions. They found that the optimized separation performance of
hybrid multilayer membranes with the bilayer number 10.5 was obtained with the permeation flux of 2275 g/m2 h
and water content in permeate of 98.7 wt. % under the conditions of 350K and water content in feed of 20 wt. %
[41]
. X. Chen et al. studied Fabrication of graphene oxide composite membranes and their application for
pervaporation dehydration of butanol, found that graphene oxide membranes are suitable candidates for butanol
dehydration via PV process [42]. J. Runhong Du et al. studied Membrane gas dehydration in a pressure-electric

- 113 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

coupled field, the results also showed that the activation energy for water permeation was reduced by the electric
field [43].
2- Discussion
The North Africa Gas Project simulation indicates water content in the export gas of about 50 ppm corresponding
to a water dew point of -15°C at CPF outlet pressure of 46.5 bar, which meets the export gas specification. This
margin will provide operational flexibility and to cater for any upsets in glycol dehydration unit. A comparison is
made between solid desiccants and liquid desiccants for North Africa Gas Project dehydration; table 5 below
indicates these comparisons. Figure (6) represents a summarized selection chart for natural gas dehydration

Guide to selection of gas dehydration processes

1000
Compression
&
Cooling
Liquid Dessicants
Gas Water Content (lb/MMSCF)

100 Glycol
&
Extended Glycol Methanol
DRIZO

10 Glycol w ith
Stripping Gas

Solids
Molecular Alumina
1 &
Sieves
Silica-Gel

0,1

0,01
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Dry Gas WDP (ºF)

Figur-6 Gas dehydration technology selection chart

Table 5: Comparison of Liquid and solid desiccants

Absorption using liquid desiccants Adsorption using solid desiccants

Low installation cost High installation costs
Low pressure drop: 5-10 psi High pressure drop: 10-50 psi
Continuous process Process in parallel
Low ratio of heat regeneration / removed water High ratio of heat regeneration / removed water
Minimum water dew point = -40ºC Minimum water dew point = -100ºC
For low water dew points other regeneration methods are needed: The reactive are poisoned in contact heavy hydrocarbons.
Stripping, Drizo, etc.
Low operating cost High operating cost
Glycols are corrosive when are degradated or contaminated Less susceptible to corrosion or foaming.
Highly affected due to changes of flow, pressure and temperature of Not highly affected due to changes of flow, pressure and
the gas flow temperature of the gas flow

From the above table, it can be noticed that Gas dehydration for North Africa Gas Project by using liquid
desiccants is more suitable than using solid desiccants. A comparison was made between Glycol and Molecular
Sieve for gas dehydration. The table 6 below indicates the main differences between Glycol and and Molecular
Sieve for gas dehydration

- 114 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

Table 6: Comparison of Glycol and Molecular Sieve for Gas Dehydration

Glycol Molecular Sieve

Glycol units have a single high pressure absorber Molecular sieves require a minimum of two high pressure adsorbers, sometimes
tower more, depending on flow rates and regeneration cycles
Lower CAPEX Higher CAPEX
Glycol units have lower peak utility consumption Molecular sieve regeneration gas heater is a cyclic service; therefore have higher
as the glycol reboiler operates continuously peak utility consumption.
Glycol units operate at maximum temperature of Molecular sieves operate at maximum temperature of >315°C. The high
204°C. The equipment that operates at high temperatures occur at high pressures.
temperature in a glycol unit is at low pressure.
Lower pressures may result in a lower pressure The combination of high temperature and high pressure may dictate the use of a
piping class for glycol unit equipment and piping higher pressure piping class for the molecular sieve equipment and piping e.g.
e.g. class 600 RF. class 900 RTJ. This may require an additional range of spare parts not found
elsewhere on the plant.
Glycol units employ simple control loops only. Molecular sieves require relatively complex valve switching logic and critical
sequence timing.
Gas pressure drop < 0.3 bar Gas pressure drop = 1.0 – 1.5 bar.
Liquid phase water droplets do not affect glycol Molecular sieve desiccant material is intolerant to liquid phase water droplets.
units. Impact of droplets on the sieve causes severe degradation of the desiccant
producing fine solid particles, which migrate through the bed and entrained in
the gas. Additional filters require maintenance and carry an attendant risk of
non-performance.
No fine particles present in Glycol unit. Attrition of desiccant creates fine particles of molecular sieve material, which
entrained, in the dry gas. A fine gas filter is required downstream adding to the
overall pressure drop of the system.

Figure (7) indicates the power consumption for each dehydration method for the North Africa project.
Power consumption for different natural gas dehydration methods

7,000

6,000

5,000
power consumption , KW

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
Tri-ethylene Glycol Molecular Sieve Solid Alumina or Expansion CaCl2 Membrane
Silica gel refrigeration

Power consumption , KW

Figure 7: Power consumption for different natural gas dehydration methods

Figure (8) indicates the capital cost in million USD for each dehydration method for the North Africa project.

- 115 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

capital Cost for different natural gas dehydration methods

20

18

16

14

12

Capital cost , million $

10

0
Tri-ethylene Glycol Molecular Sieve Solid Alumina or Expansion CaCl2 Membrane
Silica gel refrigeration

Capital Cost ,million $

Figure 8: Capital Cost for different natural gas dehydration methods

Table 5 below summarizes the main differences between the dehydration methods.
Table 7: Comparison between Dehydration methods
Technology Tri- Molecular Solid Expansion or CaCl2 Membrane
ethylene Sieve Alumina or refrigeration
Glycol Silica gel
Power Consumption, KW 1,135 6,000 3,000 100 200 437
Suitability Yes Yes No No No No
Limition None Feed temperature, None None 1-Environmental Fragility, Short
Product Loss problems Life, Product loss
2-Performance problems
North Africa Reference Yes Yes NA NA NA NA
Capital Cost, million $ 6 18 9 5 3 8

From the above table & chart, it can be noticed that removal of H2O from gas project in North Africa by using tri-
ethylene Glycol is the best choice to achieve the export gas specifications.

3- Conclusions & recommendations

It is recommended to use a TEG (Triethylene Glycol) based dehydration unit to meet the FEED filters such as
robustness (operational flexibility), simplicity, and use of proven technology (increased operator awareness with no
additional training, operating experience etc.).
It also recommended to cool the gas to 30 C to optimize the dehydration unit by reducing the size of the Glycol
Contactor and Glycol Regeneration Unit. This also relaxes the glycol purity requirements to approximately 99
%wt., which minimizes and may eliminate stripping gas requirements; however provision for stripping gas will be
retained in the design to allow flexibility to handle plant upsets and to debottleneck the TEG regeneration system in
future.

4- Nomenclature
Abbreviation Description
BS&W Basic sediment and water
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene and Xylene

- 116 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

Abbreviation Description
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CPF Central Processing Facility
DEG Diethylene glycol
DGA Diglycol amine
FEED Front End Engineering and Design
HSE Health, Safety and the Environment
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MEG Monoethylene glycol
OPEX Operating Expenditure
ppm Part per million
TEG Triethylene glycol
TREG Tetraethylene glycol

5- References
[1] Campbell, J.M., Gas Conditioning and processing, seventh ed. In: Campbell Petroleum Series Oklahoma,
1992.
[2] GPSA, 12th ed., Gas Processors Suppliers Association, USA, 2004.
[ 3] Michal Netusil, Pavel Ditl., Comparison of three methods for natural gas dehydration, Journal of Natural Gas
Chemistry Vol. 20 No. 5, 2011.
[4] Vincente, N., Hernandez-Valencia Michael, W.H., Jerry, A.B., Design glycol dehydration units for maximum
efficiency. In: Proceedings of the Seventy First GPA Annual Convection, Tulsa, Oklahoma-Oklahoma, pp.
310–317,1992.
[5] Gandhidasan P. Parametric analysis of natural gas dehydration by a triethylene glycol solution. Energy
Sources; 25:189–201, 2003.
[6] Hernandez-Valencia, V.N, Hlavinka, M.W., Bullin, J.A., "Design Glycol Units for Maximum Efficiency,"
Proc. 71st Ann. Convention of Gas Processors Association, p310, Tulsa 1992.
[7] D. Charles, C. Holland, F. Rayford, G. Anthony, Fundamentals of Chemical Reaction engineering, Prentice-
Hall International Inc., 2003.
[8] M.M. Ghiasi , A. Bahadori, S. Zendehboudi, Estimation of triethylene glycol (TEG) purity in natural gas
dehydration units using fuzzy neural network , Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 17, 26-32,
2014.
[9] M. A. Satyro, F. Schoegglb, Temperature change from isenthalpic expansion of aqueous triethylene glycol
mixtures for natural gas dehydration H.W. Yarrantonb, Fluid Phase Equilibria 305, 62–67, 2011.
[10] Gandhidasan P. Parametric analysis of natural gas dehydration by a triethylene glycol solution. Energy
Sources; 25:189–201, 2003.
[11] Løkken, T.V., Bersås, A., Christensen, K.O., Nygaard, C.F., Solbraa, E., 2008. Water content of high pressure
natural gas: data, prediction and experience from field. In: International Gas Research Conference
Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 1979, 2011.
[ 12] M.M. Ghiasi, A. Bahadori , S. Zendehboudi, I. Chatzis , Rigorous models to optimize stripping gas rate in
natural gas dehydration units, Fuel 140, 421–428, 2015.
[13] Carlson JW, Rhinesmith RB. Low pressure dehydration unit process selection and operating successes for coal
bed natural gas. In: Proceedings, annual convention – gas processors association, USA; pp. 828–47, 2007.
[14] Stewart M, Arnold K. Gas dehydration field manual. MA (USA): Gulf Professional Publishing ; 201

- 117 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

[15] M.R. Rahimpour , S.M. Jokar , P. Feyzi , R. Asghari , Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 12. 1-
12, 2013.
[16] 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.
[17] ] M.R. Rahimpour , S. M. Jokar, P. Feyzi, R. Asghari, Investigating the performance of dehydration unit with
Coldfinger technology in gas processing plant , Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 12, 1-12,
2013
[18]P. Gandhidasan, A. Abdulgarak, A. Al-Farayedhi, A. Al- Mubarak, Dehydration of Natural Gas Using Solid
Desiccants, Pergamon, 2001.
[19] Lyons, W.C., Plisga, G.J Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, second ed. Gulf
professional, Imprint of Elsevier, Burlington, MA, USA, 2005.
[20] W. Vyalkina, Gv. Nabutovskii, Z.A. Popov, V.I. Turevskii, Silica gel application, Chemistry and Technology
of Fuel and Oil 21 (5–8), 1990.
[21]J. Maria, R. Rivero, M. Ibanez, O. Inmaculada, Mathematical modelling of styrene drying by adsorption on to
activated alumina, Chemical Engineering Science 57. 2002.
[22] S. Ranjani, S. Ming, F. Edward, P. James, H. Duane, Adsorption of CO2 on Molecular Sieves and Activated
Carbon, National Energy Technology Laboratory, USA, 2005.
[23] D. Charles, C. Holland, F. Rayford, G. Anthony, Fundamentals of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Prentice-
Hall International Inc., 2003.
[24] B. Ceydi, Aysegul Askin, Evaluation of thermodynamic parameter for the adsorption of some hydrocarbons
on alumina and molecular sieves 3A& 5A by inverse gas chromatography, Journal of Chromatography, 2003.
[25] ] H.A.A. Farag, M.M Ezzat, H. Amer, A.W. Nashed, Natural gas dehydration by desiccant materials ,
Alexandria Engineering Journal, 50, 431–439, 2011.
[26] M. Takbiri, K.J. Jozani, A.M. Rashidi, H.R. Bozorgzadeh, Preparation of nanostructured activated alumina
and hybrid alumina–silica by chemical precipitation for natural gas dehydration, Microporous and
Mesoporous Materials, 182, 117–121, 2013.
[27] C. Zou, P. Zhao, M.W., D. Liu, H. Wang, Z. Wenc, Failure analysis and faults diagnosis of molecular sieve in
natural gas dehydration, Engineering Failure Analysis 34 (2013) 115–120
[28] Kohl, L., Nielsen, R.B. Gas Purification, fifth ed.. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, 1997.
[29] Minkkinen, A., Larue, J. and Patel, S., “Methanol Gas Treating Scheme Offers Economics, Versatility,” The
Oil and Gas Journal, June 1, p. 65, 1992.
[30] Mokhatab, S., Poe, W.A., Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Pro- cessing. Gulf Professional
Publishing, 2006.
[31] Dow Chemical Company Report, Gas Dehydration with PELADOW DG Calcium Chloride. USA; May 1998.
[32] Bahadori A, Vuthaluru HB. Simple methodology for sizing of absorbers for TEG (triethylene glycol) gas
dehydration systems. Energy; 34(11):1910–6, 2009.
[33] M.M. Ghiasi, A. Bahadori, S. Zendehboudi, Estimation of the water content of natural gas dried by solid
calcium chloride dehydrator units, Fuel 117, 33–42, 2014
[34] R.W. Baker, K. Lokhandwala, Natural gas processing with membranes: an overview, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
47, 2109–2121, 2008.
[35] R.W. Baker, Membrane Technology and Applications, 2nd ed., Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK, 2004.
[36] J.F. Davis, Gas Processors’ National Association Meeting, Tulsa, OK, 1995.
[37] K. Lokhandwala, I. Pinnau, Z. He, K. Amo, J.C.D. Da Costa, H. Wijmans, R. Baker, Membrane separation of
nitrogen from natural gas: a case study from membrane synthesis to commercial deployment, J. Membr. Sci.
346, 270–279, 2010.
[38] H. Lin , Scott M. Thompson, Adrian Serbanescu-Martin, Johannes G. Wijmans,Karl D. Amo, Kaaeid A.
Lokhandwala, Timothy C. Merkel, Journal of Membrane Science 432, 106–114, 2013
[39] McKee, R. L., Changela, M. K., and Reading, G. L., Hydro. Process, Vol. 70, No. 4, April, p. 63, 1991.
- 118 -
 Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018

[40] S. Shirazian, S.N. Ashrafizadeh, Synthesis of substrate-modified LTA zeolite membranes for dehydration of
natural gas, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 22,132–137, 2015.
[41] J. Zhao, Y. Zhu, F. Pan, G. He, C. Fang, K. Cao, R. Xing, Z. Jiang , Fabricating graphene oxide-based
ultrathin hybrid membrane for pervaporation dehydration via layer-by-layer self-assembly driven by multiple
interactions Journal of Membrane Science 487, 162–172, 2015.
[42] X. Chen, G. Liu, H. Zhang, Y. Fan, Fabrication of graphene oxide composite membranes and their application
for pervaporation dehydration of butanol, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23, 1102–1109, 2015.
[43] J. Runhong Du , X. Shi , X. Feng, Y. Li , Y. Zhang, X., Membrane gas dehydration in a pressure-electric
coupled field ,Journal of Membrane Science 493, 444–451, 2015.

- 119 -
 ‫‪Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology (MJET), Vol. 37, No. 2. July 2018‬‬

‫مقارنة طرق تجفيف الغاز الطبيعي‬

‫إبراهيم اسماعيل إبراهيم *‪ ،‬إبراهيم عبد لسالم قطب عاشور‪ ،‬ممدوح محمود نصار‪ ،‬عبد العزيز احمد‬
‫قسم الهندسة الكيميائية‪ ،‬كلية الهندسة‪ ،‬جامعة المنيا‬

‫نبذة مختصرة‬

‫يتراوح محتوى الرطوبة المسموح بها خالل عمليات انتقال الغاز الطبيعي من ‪ 4‬إلى ‪111-44( MMSCF/pound 7‬‬
‫‪ . )m3 / mg‬المحتوى المائي قد يؤدي إلى تشكيل الهيدرات الصلبة‪ ،‬وتآكل خطوط األنابيب ومحطات المعالجة خاصة في‬
‫وجود ‪ CO2‬أو‪ ، H2S‬مشاكل الركود والتآكل في خطوط التدفق ‪.‬كما أنه يؤدي إلى زيادة الحجم بقدر معين‪ ،‬وانخفاض القيمة‬
‫الحرارية وتجميد في عمليات محطات امتصاص المبردة التبريد‪ .‬ان تجفيف الغاز الطبيعي ضروري من أجل الحصول على‬
‫نقطة الندى للماء تحت درجة حرارة التشغيل لتجنب تكاثف المياه والمياه الحرة الالحقة على النظام وتشكيل الهيدرات ‪.‬تم‬
‫إجراء مقارنة بين أساليب الصناعة المختلفة على نطاق واسع لتجفيف الغاز الطبيعي من أجل اختيار طريقة مناسبة لتحقيق‬
‫نقطة الندى المياه المطلوبة للغاز المصدر لمشروع غاز شمال أفريقيا ‪ .‬ومن هذه الطرق هي االمتزاز (باستخدام المجففات‬
‫الصلبة)‪ ،‬وامتصاص (باستخدام المجففات السائلة)‪ ،‬والجفاف (بواسطة‪ ، CaCl2‬التبريد المتوسع والمتغلغلة من خالل‬
‫غشاء ‪).‬تمت المقارنة وفقا لطلبها على الطاقة ومالءمتها لالستخدام في بلدان شمال أفريقيا ‪.‬وفي مرافق العمليات المركزية‬
‫لشمال أفريقيا‪ ،‬في مشروع شمال أفريقيا للغاز في جنوب تونس يمكن أن يتراوح ضغط الغاز ودرجة الحرارة خالل التدفق‬
‫بين ‪ 44‬و ‪ 46‬بار و ‪ 14‬درجة مئوية إلى ‪ 46‬درجة مئوية (في الشتاء إلى الصيف) على التوالي‪ ،‬وعليه فإن مواصفات‬
‫نقطة الندى المطلوبة من غاز التصدير في الحقل هي ‪ 11-‬درجة مئوية عند أي ضغط ‪.‬ونتيجة للمقارنة وجد أنه من‬
‫المستحسن استخدام ‪( TEG‬ثالثي إيثيلين جاليكول) طريقة الجفاف وذلك لمزاياه العديدة‪.‬‬

‫‪- 120 -‬‬