Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Hydrate Prevention using MEG instead of MeOH: Impact of experience from major
Norwegian developments on technology selection for injection and recovery of MEG
S. Brustad, K.-P. Lken, and J.G. Waalmann, Aker Kvrner Engineering and Technology
Abstract
The four Norwegian gas/condensate field developments Troll,
Snhvit, Ormen Lange and sgard are used together with
amongst others Britannia Satellites (ConocoPhillips) and Shah
Deniz (BP) to illustrate experience and technology status
related to injection and recovery of MEG (Mono Ethylene
Glycol).
A comparison between MEG and MeOH is presented.
Advantages, limitations and cost elements (CAPEX/OPEX) by
use of glycol (MEG) vs. alcohols (Methanol/Ethanol) are
reviewed and discussed in relation to their applicability.
Based on experience, typical operational problems within
closed loop MEG systems with salt- and water removal are
carbonate scale deposits in pipeline and recovery systems,
accumulation of corrosion products and other small particles
and carry-over/foaming. A holistic approach for proper design
and prevention of these and other incidents are presented.
Introduction
Proper hydrate management is vital for all field developments.
For short and moderate tie-backs, flowline insulation
(maintaining fluid temperature above the hydrate formation
temperature) combined with a depressurisation strategy, is
normally the basic method. For developments with cold well
fluids, systems which are difficult to depressurise or restart
(deep water), and for general improvement of the field
regularity, flowline heating is an additional element. For
deepwater developments, the hydrate management is often
based on displacement with stabilized oil, or built around a
subsea separation concept /4/. For appropriate fluids, Cold
Flow may turn out to be the next quantum leap. However, for
long distance gas-condensate tie-backs with complex subsea
Chemical
Cost USD/Metric Tonne
MeOH
300
MEG
900
Offshore shipping cost is approximately 150-200 USD/tonne
of chemical.
It should be noted that the cost numbers tend to fluctuate over
time. Lately the price of MEG has shown a rising tendency
due to an increasing demand from the Chinese textile industry
in particular.
It is also important to realize that the actual OPEX is
significantly governed by the chemical losses and the make-up
required to cover for these losses (see Table 3).
THIs and suppression performance
The lower the molecular weight, the better the hydrate
suppression performance, hence, MEG yields better
performance per mass basis compared to TEG (triethylene
glycol), and methanol yields better performance than ethanol
etc. Figure 1 shows the relative performance of some
thermodynamic inhibitors; NaCl, methanol and MEG. The
more the equilibrium line is shifted to the left, the more
effective is the inhibitor, and the larger is the safe area
(conditions where hydrate formation will not take place).
OTC 17355
o
MeOH
EtOH
MEG
DEG
TEG
NaCl
2.0
4.2
9.3
15.3
18.6
22.2
1.4
3.0
6.6
10.7
13.0
15.4
1.05
2.25
5.2
9.0
11.35
14.0
0.63
1.4
3.3
5.9
7.5
9.3
0.46
1.05
2.7
5.0
6.5
8.2
1.96
4.3
10.7
15.0
-
THI regeneration
Both MEG and MeOH may be readily regenerated, although
there are limitations regarding salinity of the produced water
for conventional MEG regeneration facilities. However, e.g.
Kvaerner Process Systems (KPS) has overcome this with their
continuos reclamation facilities, which is installed on the
sgard B semi. Apart from some possible, field-specific
aromatics and phenols following the water-phase, the water
leaving such a regeneration facility is very clean. Also, as the
glycol has rather low solubility in the gas phase, the
contamination of the gas phase using MEG as a hydrate
inhibitor is insignificant. When it comes to MeOH, the losses
to the gas phase are significant, and the methanol
concentration in the water leaving the regeneration facilities
must be evaluated against the height of the distillation column.
A distillation process can reclaim both chemicals, but also due
to the low vapour pressure of MEG, a smaller, hightemperature-recovery column may be used for MEG
regeneration compared to MeOH regeneration.
MeOH regeneration is in operation on a limited number of
installations in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Far East,
including the Shell Malampaya onshore facility in the
Phillipines and the Williams Canyon Station platform (part of
the Canyon Express system) in the GoM. The industry
knowledge on the cost-effectiveness of these systems is fairly
limited, since recovering a volatile like methanol is not
straight-forward. The presence of aromatics in the condensates
only makes life more difficult due to the formation of
azeotropes.
OTC 17355
MEG
Loss to condensate
phase
The methanol
concentration dissolved in
condensate is 0.5 weight%.
OTC 17355
OTC 17355
4. Precipitation chemistry
Understanding the chemistry and physics of the carbonates
and sulphates in combination with the different divalent
cations (Ca2+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Ba2+, Sr2+, etc.) is important to
design the on-shore/topside MEG plant properly. A picture of
carbonate scale before and after cleaning is shown in the
figure below.
OTC 17355
Statoil/Gassco Kollsnes:
The Statoil/Gassco operated Troll Gas (Kollsnes) plant has a
conventional regeneration system, which has been in operation
since 1996. At the offshore Troll A platform, formation water
is separated and MEG injected, before the well stream is sent
through the two 68 km 36 multiphase gas/condensate
pipelines to the onshore facility at Kollsnes. Not only is the
Troll A the largest GBS in the world (the largest man-made
object ever moved), but the Troll development was also the
first development to fully rely on multiphase transport through
large diameter pipelines. In principle the overall arrangement
is quite similar to a Subsea to Beach (S2B) concept including
water separation (re-injection).
The Kollsnes plant experienced a considerable amount of salts
entering the onshore plant in early operation. The plant also
had problems with scaling in the inlet heaters and also the
column/reboiler. High corrosion rate in early operation was
resolved by switching the pipeline corrosion protection
scheme from corrosion inhibitor to pH-stabilisation. A
permanent ion exchange unit is installed for slipstream salt
removal. In addition new particle removal units with highspeed centrifuges have been introduced to take out corrosion
products and carbonates from the closed loop. The Kollsnes
plant had a common MEG system for the pipelines and for gas
dehydration. Due to severe depositions in the onshore plant
these systems have now been segregated.
Shell Mensa:
For the Mensa field in the GoM, MEG was selected for
combined hydrate control and dehydration (without topside
dehydration provisions). Unexpected condensate production
caused serious topside problems as the condensate formed an
emulsion with the glycol. At the same time, dissolved solids
were detected in the well stream. Even though formation water
production was not expected, completion fluids and formation
water were suggested to be the source of the salts. As a result,
the MEG regeneration facility experienced serious operational
problems (scaling, fouling, plugging). These problems even
propagated to the MEG injection system with plugging of the
subsea injection lines.
Total South Pars:
South Pars is another major development where MEG has
been selected for hydrate control in the two 109 km 32
pipelines. MDEA is mixed in the MEG, thus producing a very
high pH for corrosion protection. Even though formation
water production was not expected, excessive scaling has been
experienced (column, heat exchangers and inlet piping). The
reason is up-concentration of Ca in the closed loop MEG
system, and the main source of Ca is believed to be
completion fluids from the well clean-up.
OTC 17355
b) Full Reclamation
In a full Reclamation system the total rich MEG feed is boiled
off in a Flash Separator followed by distillation to the required
Lean MEG specification. This configuration is applicable
when higher formation water rates is expected from the
producing wells. The MEG plant will then consist of a pretreatment system where the rich MEG is heated and
depressurised to remove hydrocarbons in a 3-phase separator,
followed by Storage facilities, before the MEG is sent to the
Flash Separator. The Flash Separator operates under vacuum
(0.10-0.15 bara) in order to vaporise the MEG at a temperature
low enough to avoid decomposition of the MEG. Essentially
all the salts and particles are removed, since the whole rich
MEG feed exits the Flash Separator as vapour. Non-volatile
chemicals will also remain in the Flash Separator. Salt
accumulates in the concentrated liquid phase, crystallises and
can be separated in a Decanter Centrifuge. Heat for
evaporation is added through a heater in a recycle stream. The
vapour from the Flash separator is distilled into MEG and
water in the downstream Distillation Column.
OTC 17355
OTC 17355
6. System design
System design includes calculation of MEG demand, from day
one and in the future, determination of corrosion and scale
inhibition philosophy over the field lifetime, and design of
MEG injection points and injection devices. Design of the
MEG distribution network, pumps, particle removal
alternatives and MEG storage tanks, in many cases being part
of the plants regularity philosophy, are also contributors to an
overall system. Finally, the selection of a proper MEG
regeneration process must be done. System design for the
whole loop also includes sparing philosophy for critical
systems and sufficient capacity margins.
For sizing of the MEG tanks and the recovery capacity, input
from pipeline sizing governing liquid accumulation is
important. In this context, the sizing of slug catchers, and the
liquid handling capacity from slug catchers to the Rich MEG
tank are important factors in the total loop logistics /4/.
The required redundancy and sparing of components, rich and
lean MEG storage capacity and the MEG plant capacity
margins must be based on availability analysis. OREDA data
has shown to be insufficient for a MEG system, hence the
availability analysis must be based on actual experience from
the plants in operation together with input from the oil
companies.
10
OTC 17355
Conclusion
When reviewing the advantages, limitations and cost elements
(CAPEX/OPEX) by use of glycol (MEG) vs. alcohols
(methanol/ethanol), it seems evident that MEG is the preferred
inhibitor. This is supported by the choices made by the
operators for recently built and planned long distance gascondensate tie-backs. The list of MEG-based developments
includes record-breaking developments like Ormen Lange
(Norsk Hydro - Norway), Snhvit (Statoil - Norway), KG-D6
(Reliance Industries - India), Scarab-Safron (Burullus
Egypt), South Pars (Total Iran), Shah Deniz (BP Azerbaijan), Britannia Satellites (ConocoPhillips UK),
Gorgon (Chevron Texaco Australia) and Shtokman
(Gazprom - Russian Barents Sea).
A closed loop MEG system is complex and represents a
number of chemical, physical and hence operational
challenges. Consequently, it is extremely important to
approach a closed loop MEG system from a holistic point of
view. The consequence of neglecting this will in many cases
be severe operational problems leading to plant downtime and
losses of income.
Continuous experience from the conventional MEG
regeneration plant at the Kollsnes onshore facility and the full
reclamation unit on the sgard B semi, combined with
comprehensive investigations performed in the Snhvit,
Ormen Lange, Shah Deniz and Britannia Satellites projects,
have greatly improved the understanding of the chemistry and
the totality in a closed loop MEG system.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Institute for Energy Technology
(IFE), Norsk Hydro, Statoil, BP and ConocoPhillips for their
support and cooperation during the ongoing Aker Kvrner /
Kvrner Process System MEG projects.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.