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

net/publication/267457738

Prediction of Mineral Scaling in a MEG Loop System of a Gas Production Offshore

Article · January 2012

DOI: 10.2118/155124-MS

CITATIONS READS
3 1,053

6 authors, including:

Salima Baraka-Lokmane Christian Hurtevent

TOTAL TOTAL
46 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marion Seiersten
Institutt for energiteknikk, Norway, Kjeller
63 PUBLICATIONS   532 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

O₂ uptake in MEG storage tanks View project

Oil field additives detection and quantification View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Hurtevent on 23 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 155124

Prediction of Mineral Scaling in a MEG Loop System of a Gas Production

Offshore
Baraka-Lokmane, S.1, Hurtevent, C.1, Ohanessian, J-L.1, Rousseau, G. 1, Seiersten, M.2, Deshmush, S.3 , 1Total,
2
Institute of Energy Technology, IFE, 3Aker Solutions

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Oilfield Scale held in Aberdeen, UK, 30–31 May 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

An offshore gas field located in the Far East has two reservoirs: reservoir A and reservoir B. Production fluids consist of gas
and hydrocarbon condensate with some produced water from the two reservoirs. The producing fields are in water depths
varying between 250 and 275m with ambient seawater temperatures and operating conditions that result in only occasional
concerns about potential hydrate formation in the production systems. Lean Monoethylene Gylcol (MEG) is injected near the
wellheads for hydrate inhibition.

This paper presents the risk of mineral scaling at critical points throughout the process with the three production scenarios:
reservoir A alone, reservoir A and reservoir B, and finally reservoir B alone. Special attention has been put on the effect of
mixing produced waters from reservoir A and reservoir B topside. Furthermore there are considerable uncertainties with
respect to the amount of organic acids that may be produced; therefore some evaluations have been performed with and
without organic acids.

Introduction
The Far East gas/condensate field consists of two reservoirs: A and B. It is a High Pressure High Temperature (HTHP) field
with a Flowing Tubing Head Pressure (FTHP) from 27500 kPa to end of plateau pressure of 4800 kPa. The maximum FTHP
temperature varies between 135°C (A reservoir) and 155°C (B reservoir). Reservoirs A and B are sour gases containing
respectively 8 and 15% of CO2. The early phase of production will be from reservoir A and will be boosted by reservoir B
when reservoir A begins to decline (expected at Year 12.5). The fluids will be processed on a Central Processing Facility,
where primary gas/liquid separation will take place. The liquids will then be sent via subsea transfer lines to a Floating
Production, Storage and Offloading facility (FPSO) where further processing and MEG regeneration will be carried out.

The design of the MEG Regeneration Plant covers two phases of this project represented by cases 1 and 2 as described
below. Case 3 covers the sensitivity case and due to uncertainties is not covered in the design but rather commented on with
respect to the design.
• Case 1 is for the produced water from reservoir A and represents the first 9.5 years of production.
• Case 2 represents the maximum produced water rates and will be a combination of the produced water from reservoirs A
and B and covers the years 9.5 to 16. After 12.5 years, the production of reservoir B will start up and the highest Rich MEG
rates are reached with peak water production in Year 16.
• Case 3 (the sensitivity case) represents the highest formation water rate and covers years 16 to 22.5. The largest production
of salts will be later in field life, when the production of reservoir A declines whereas the production of reservoir B will
increase.

An ever increasing number of gas condensate fields are being operated with MEG as the hydrate inhibitor1,2. MEG injection
will manage and prevent hydrate formation at the offshore facilities and the pipelines. Two MEG Regeneration Packages will
be designed for this project (Figure 1).
2 SPE 155124

The purpose of this study is to map the pH of the MEG loop in order to determine the potential scaling points and to estimate
the chemical dosing rates required, to avoid scaling in the said points. The chemical injection rates determined in this study
will also be used to determine the Reclaimer size in the MEG Regeneration plant, as some of the chemicals injected must be
removed to avoid the build up of salts in the MEG loop.

Input data
The reservoir data are presented in Table 1. Table 2 gives the formation water analyses. It is noted that both the calcium
concentration and the bicarbonate (HCO3-) concentration in the input data are high; this may be a result of including
carboxylates in the bicarbonate value. In presence of organic acids, the bicarbonate concentration does not have a definitive
value. The parameter that governs the bicarbonate concentration and the speciation of the organic acids is the total alkalinity.
That is used in the present calculation and it is set to the value that gives SR=1 for CaCO3 at the given reservoir conditions.
The given reservoir conditions are the same for Case 2 and 3 and hence the tuned formation water analyses are identical
(Table 3). The formation water properties are presented in Table 4. The calculated and given condensed water rates are
presented in Table 5. The hydrocarbon composition used in the evaluation is given in Table 6. The hydrocarbon composition
changes with time is small, therefore the same compositions were used for all cases. The water, MEG and gas production
rates are summarized in Table 7. The organic acids are volatile and will be produced with the gas as well as the formation
water. The amount produced with the gas was estimated by performing a flash calculation at reservoir conditions. The
reservoir data in Table 1 was used together with the formation water analyses in Table 3 and the gas rates in Table 7.

MEG regeneration and reclaiming package

The MEG loop System used in this project consists of a pretreatment of Rich MEG followed by a regeneration step and
finally a reclaiming of one part of Lean MEG.
- Divalent cations (Ca2+, Mg2+) would be precipitated in the pretreatment step
- Water would be distilled in the regeneration step in order to increase MEG concentration roughly from 50% to 90%.
- Pure MEG and water would be distilled from a slip stream of Lean MEG in order to get a total salt concentration lower
than 2%.

As shown in Figure 1, the MEG System configuration consists of the following units:

 Pretreatment
A pretreatment system is designed for removing carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and low soluble/divalent salts; as shown in
Figure 2, the MEG Pretreatment is twofold:

- Removal of Hydrocarbons
The rich MEG is heated up to 80°C to flash off dissolved gases and break any hydrocarbon-MEG emulsions, and then
physically separate the hydrocarbons from the MEG. A heater and a 3-phase separator are installed upstream of a rich MEG
storage tank to remove the bulk of the hydrocarbons. Then a liquid-liquid coalescer placed at the outlet of the rich MEG
storage tank pump will reduce the hydrocarbon content to below 20 ppm before the salts pretreatment system.

- Removal of divalent salts

Sodium hydroxide is added for precipitating the divalent salts. The types of solids formed will be predominantly low soluble
salts from formation water (CaCO3, MgCO3, BaCO3…) with particle size between 10 and 25 μm, and to a less extent
corrosion products (FeCO3, FeO, Fe3O4, FeS) with particle size between 1 and 10 μm.

The high amounts of organic acids along with the likely low concentration of iron particles favor a design where pretreatment
is on the Lean MEG instead of the Rich MEG. As a result, no scaling is observed on the MEG regeneration reboilers and the
pretreatment size is a lot smaller since only 20% of the full stream is treated.

 MEG Reclaimer Design

The main purpose of the system is to crystallise and remove high solubility salts (mainly chlorides) from the Lean MEG. The
single train Slip-Stream MEG Reclaimer for Cases 1 and 2 is based on maintaining a maximum of 20 g/l of salts in the Lean
MEG at a maximum formation water production. It will be increased up to 30 g/l of salts for Case 3. The slurries are removed
from the sidestream loop of the Reclaimer as shown on Figure 3.

A downstream Slip-Stream Reclamation system is designed for the high soluble/monovalent salt removal. The Slip Stream
rate is determined by the allowable amount of highly soluble salts in the Lean MEG (NaCl, KCl), set at 20 g/l. This value is
conservative and well below the solubility limit (usually around 70 to 80 g/l) anywhere in the closed MEG loop, as such
reducing the criticality of the reclaimer on a short term basis and thereby increasing the overall system availability.
SPE 155124 3

A drawback of the MEG Reclaimer is that the slurries from the vacuum evaporator are extracted from the sidestream loop in
which flows a slurry containing around 15% of solids and 95% of MEG at a temperature of 135°C i.e. above the MEG flash
point (111°C). This results in corrosive emissions that have been deteriorating some metallic parts of the installation.

Such a process can work only if all produced calcium is precipitated inside the pretreatment step; otherwise some calcium
would be recycled in the loop leading to scaling problems from MEG injection point to surface facilities.
To precipitate all calcium, a sufficient amount of carbonates must be present in order to react with calcium according to the
following chemical reaction:

Ca2+ + CO32-  CaCO3 (eq.1)

Carbonates come from bicarbonates, carbonates and dissolved carbon dioxide, the optimum carbon dioxide content in MEG
is the concentration that exactly balances calcium concentration (equation 2):

Ca2+(aq) + CO2(aq) + 2OH-(aq)  CaCO3(s) + H2O (eq.2)

The crucial point is the operating pressure of Rich MEG flash drum, a too low pressure means less carbon dioxide content in
MEG thus less caustic soda to add in order to precipitate calcium carbonate but with the risk to have not enough CO2
available to do it completely.

Simulation results showed that enough CO2 would be available to precipitate all calcium, however for case 2 it is mentioned
that if the pressure of the flash drum would be reduced to 1bar, extra carbonate injection in the form of Na 2CO3 would be
required in addition to the NaOH to promote the entire precipitation of calcium.

The treatment of Rich MEG will need of huge quantities of potassium or sodium hydroxide, concentrated hydrochloric acid,
potential solid sodium carbonate and will generate tons of solids.
 From 700 to 3000 tons per year of Calcium Carbonate,
 From 15 to 35m3/day of KOH 28%.
 From 2 to 10m3/day of HCl 32%.
 Need of oxygen scavenger qualified for 90wt% MEG.
 The organic acid content is 500 ppm. As the pretreatment is located downstream the regeneration unit, the pH of the
rich MEG is therefore acidic (pH of 5). This allows to avoid the scaling of the reboilers but causes corrosion of the
carbon steel reboiler shells that need to be repaired every 3 years. However, no corrosion of the overheads of the
regeneration unit has been observed.

Scale Inhibition strategy

The precipitation (solid drop-out) and scaling risk depends on the lean MEG composition and the MEG regeneration. In this
case MEG regeneration may consist of pretreatment where alkali is added to drop out salts from the rich MEG, but it is also
an alternative not to use pretreatment. Both alternatives are evaluated. Furthermore there are considerable uncertainties with
respect to the amount of organic acids that may be produced. Some of the evaluations are hence done with and without
organic acids.

The modeling methodology used as a basis for the report is a purely thermodynamic approach. The equilibrium calculations
are done with the MultiScale software* with the glycol add-in (MEGScale). MultiScale is a computer program for the
prediction of mineral deposition in oil operation.
The electrolyte model in MultiScale is a “Pitzer model” for dissolved species in addition to a complete PVT model.
MultiScale is a point model, but can handle mixing of streams. It has a PT (pressure – temperature) flash calculation
considering gas, oil and aqueous phases and calculating the speciation of the included compounds between these three
phases3.

Three production scenarios have been considered: (i) Case 1 is for the produced water from A reservoir and represents the
first 9.5 years of production; (ii) Case 2 represents the maximum produced water rates and will be a combination of the
produced water from A and B fields and covers the years 9.5 to 16; (iii) Case 3 the A reservoir production declines whereas
the B production will increase.

Case 1: Production of Reservoir A only, year 9.5

Apart from BaSO4, no other compounds reach supersaturation upstream pretreatment. The alkalinity injection required in
pretreatment to precipitate divalent cations depends on the CO2 concentration in addition to the divalent cation concentration.
This is because the CO2 must be consumed before the CO32- and the OH- concentration increases sufficiently to precipitate the
4 SPE 155124

divalent cations. To illustrate this, the pretreatment calculations were performed for two pressures in the rich MEG flash
drum; 2 bar as the original input and 1 bar. When the rich MEG is flashed to 2 bar, 27.9 mmol/kg alkalinity is required to
precipitate the divalent cations to less than 1 mg/L. That corresponds to e.g. 22.6 m3/d of 28 wt% KOH. In the evaluation
KOH is used in order to be conservative as it gives a higher salt loading (in weight) in the lean MEG because K has higher
molecular weight than Na. The implication of replacing KOH with NaOH will be minor on the results in Table 2-5).
Reducing the pressure in the flash drum to 1 bar reduces the alkalinity requirement to 16.2 mmol/kg (13.1 m3/d of 28%
KOH).
It also seen that with the given alkalinity addition there is potential for additional precipitation of Mg(OH)2 in the reboiler. A
relative large amount of acid (13.1 m3/d of 32 wt% HCl) is required to neutralise the lean MEG in base case. That will also be
reduced when the alkalinity injection is reduced due to lower CO2 in the rich MEG.
The slip stream to the reclaimer required to maintain 2 wt% salt in the lean MEG is 20% with a CO2 content in the rich MEG
corresponding to 2 bar in the flash drum and 15% if the CO2 content in the rich MEG is reduced by flashing at 1 bar.
Changing the base from KOH to NaOH reduces the slip stream further to 13%.
The pipelines at this field will have corrosion resistant cladding and the source of iron is limited to formation waters and a
limited amount of corrosion products from the MEG injection line (no corrosion products from injection line included in this
evaluation). The low iron concentration and the alkalinity in the formation water, anticipated to be comprised of carboxylates
rather than bicarbonate, reduce the possible precipitation in the reboiler without pretreatment. It is thus a possibility to treat
the lean MEG from the reboiler instead of the rich MEG. The advantage, in addition to less volume to treat, is that dissolved
CO2 is effectively removed in the reboiler. Thus, it is not necessary to inject alkalinity to consume excess CO 2. However,
with no CO2 in the lean MEG, alkalinity must be added as carbonate or a combination of carbonate and hydroxide.
Calculations were done to evaluate this possibility. The condition for this treatment was set to 90°C and 2.5 bar. The results
showed that there will be a risk of precipitation in the reboiler in this case; the alkalinity requirement is less than for the
pretreatment. The required slip stream in this case is 12% if K2CO3 is used as alkalinity.

Case 2: Reservoirs A and B peak production, year 16

Apart from BaSO4, no other compounds reach supersaturation upstream pretreatment. The alkalinity injection required in
pretreatment to precipitate divalent cations to less than 1 mg/L is 26.5 mmol/kg. That corresponds to e.g. 35 m3/d of 28 wt%
KOH. The effect of the rich MEG flash drum can be seen by comparing the CO2 concentration. Without the flash drum,
additional 18.7 mmol/kg of alkalinity would be required to consume the dissolved CO2. It also seen that with the given
alkalinity addition there is potential for additional precipitation of Mg(OH)2 in the reboiler. As the alkalinity consumed by
CO2 is less than in case 1, less acid (4.1 m3/d of 32 wt% HCl) is required to neutralise the lean MEG.
The slip stream to the reclaimer required to maintain 2 wt% salt in the lean MEG is 29%. This can be reduced to 27% if KOH
is replaced by NaOH and the 2 wt% requirement in the lean MEG is maintained. Also in this case, the chemical consumption
can be reduced by lowering the pressure in the flash drum. The optimum pressure is the one that results in a CO 2 +
bicarbonate concentration in the MEG (in mmol/kg) that exactly balance the concentration of divalent cations except Mg2+ as
demonstrated by:

Ca2+(aq) + CO2(aq) + 2OH-(aq) = CaCO3(s) + H2O (eq.2)

Ca2+(aq) + HCO3-(aq) + OH-(aq) = CaCO3(s) + H2O (eq.3)

In this case, concentration of divalent cations is 7.2 mmol/kg, hence the optimum CO2 content is the same as the amount of
bicarbonate which is low. Reducing flash drum pressure from 1.5 bar to 1 bar reduces the CO2 content in rich MEG resulting
in only 5.9 mmol/kg CO2. Hence, carbonate must be added to compensate. The slip stream is reduced to 25 for 1.5 bar flash
drum pressure and 24% for 1 bar. It is also possible to treat the lean MEG, but if rich MEG is not pre-treated, precipitation of
Mg(OH)2 and CaSO4 is predicted in the reboiler. The amounts are moderate (ca. 100 kg/d).

This project has special attention on the risk of scaling if reservoirs A and B formation waters are mixed in the topside
facilities. A special evaluation has thus been performed to throw light on the possible increased scaling risk. The main case is
with organic acids/carboxylates in formation water, gas and lean MEG. As a sensitivity a similar calculation was performed
without organic acid and then also without carboxylates in the lean MEG.

The results showed that only BaSO4 reaches saturation. It is reservoir B formation water that has the highest risk of BaSO4
precipitation; the saturation ratio is lower in the mixed aqueous phase even though the temperature is lower. The highest
saturation ratio is in the separator because it has the lowest temperature. The saturation ratio depends also on the
concentration of sulphate in the lean MEG, and two sulphate levels in the lean MEG have been compared: the anticipated
accumulated concentration due to sulphate excess relative to strontium and barium in the formation waters and zero sulphate.
The results show that even though the saturation ratio is markedly reduced with the lower sulphate concentration, the amount
that may precipitate is only reduced by 10 %.
SPE 155124 5

Table 8 shows the estimated organic acid production rates in the gas phase. The simulation results showed that there is little
difference in the cases with and without organic acids. That is not surprising as long as only BaSO4 precipitation is predicted,
as that is independent of acidity/alkalinity and pH. The saturation ratios for the carbonates are so low that the effect is
marginal. It might be surprising to see that the pH for reservoir B and the mixed aqueous phase is lower without organic acids
than with. The reason is that when the organic acids are removed, the carboxylates in the lean MEG are also removed. This
buffers the pH of the aqueous phase when it is equilibrated with the high CO2 reservoir B gas and the lower pH is a result of
lower buffer capacity. The overall conclusion from these calculations is that with the given production rates and topside
conditions there is a considerable risk of BaSO4 precipitation when reservoir B formation water is produced. Mixing the
reservoirs A and B formation waters does not enhance the possible amount of solid.

Case 3: Reservoirs A and B high salt production

The produced water is supersaturated with BaSO4 and dilution is not sufficient to lower the saturation ratio to less than 1. In
this case, it is also seen that CaCO3 reaches saturation downstream of the MEG injection point at reservoir B. The alkalinity
injection required in pretreatment to precipitate divalent cations to less than 1 mg/L is 29.5 mmol/kg. That corresponds to e.g.
36.2 m3/d of 28 wt% KOH. The effect of the rich MEG flash drum can be seen by comparing the CO2 concentration. Without
the flash drum, additional 11 mmol/kg of alkalinity would be required to consume the dissolved CO2. The CO2 level in the
rich MEG should not be lowered more; in this case, it is just sufficient to precipitate the calcium and strontium which
amounts to 11 mmol/kg. It is also seen that with the given alkalinity addition there is potential for additional precipitation of
Mg(OH)2 in the reboiler. As the alkalinity consumed by CO2 is less than in case 1, less acid (1.4 m3/d of 32 wt% HCl) is
required to neutralise the lean MEG.
The slip stream to the reclaimer required to maintain 2 wt% salt in the lean MEG is 32%. That can be reduced to 31% by
replacing KOH with NaOH. In this case, the concentration of divalent cations in the rich MEG is 11 mmol/kg. The amount of
CO2 in the rich MEG from the flash drum at 2 bar is thus nearly ideal (12.5 mmol/kg). It is thus nothing to gain by reducing
the pressure in the flash drum. There will be a small reduction in the alkalinity requirement in a lean MEG treatment
compared to the rich MEG treatment, but that is small.

Mercury removal
The presence of mercury is anticipated; however its quantity and type are still unclear. In the event it will be on the form of
HgS, the tests showed that specific coagulant and flocculent can help migrate most of the HgS from the condensate to the
aqueous phase, from where it will be eliminated by centrifuge and filter-press4,5,6,7,8. Seven disc-stack centrifuges are foreseen
to handle the mercury content corresponding to the design phase (22 years from the start-up). It is then tempting to use those
centrifuges for mercury removal and for pretreatment (calcium removal) as the same type of centrifugeshave been selected
for both applications. However, this could result in contamination of the produced water and of the Rich MEG by mercury.
This should therefore be absolutely avoided and dedicated disc stack centrifuges should be chosen for both applications or
another filtration technology selected for divalent salt pretreatment should be applied.

Discussions
In case of a pretreatment, the rich MEG flash drum reduces the alkalinity consumption in pretreatment considerably because
the extra flash reduces the CO2 concentration in the rich MEG. The acid injection required to neutralise the lean MEG is
reduced accordingly. For Case 1 it is more optimal to operate the flash drum (FD) at 1 bara than at 2 bara. For case 2 the
optimum FD pressure is around 1.5 bara. The lower pressure reduces the chemical consumptions and the required slip stream
to the reclaimer considerably.

Treating the lean MEG rather than having a rich MEG pretreatment will lead to some sulphate and Mg(OH)2 precipitation in
the reboiler; ca. 50 kg/d for Case 1 and 100 kg/d for Case 2. Mg(OH)2 precipitation is foreseen with pretreatment as well. A
lean MEG treatment will reduce the alkalinity consumption and the slip stream somewhat. A lean MEG treatment relies on
injection of carbonate rather than hydroxide.

The results from the simulations are conservative and are based solely on thermodynamics. The literature on the kinetic
behaviour of salts in MEG is limited and thus the simulations are based on calculations at equilibrium. However, with respect
to the Pretreatments operation the system is expected to reach equilibrium within the residence time9,10,11.

The results from the pH mapping lead to a larger Reclamation unit being selected. This is due to the amount of alkalinity
required for removing the low soluble salts in the pretreatment and the acid required for neutralizing the excess alkalinity
added. The salt from the chemical addition in the pretreatment and the Lean MEG will add on to the high soluble salts to be
removed in the Reclaimer.

The CO2 content in the gas and Rich MEG has a large impact on the design. By increasing the pH of the Rich MEG in the
pretreatment the dissolved CO2 in the liquid forms CO32- which can be used as the carbonate source for the divalent cation
salt precipitation. If the concentration of CO2 in the Rich MEG is high, a large amount of alkalinity (NaOH) is required just
6 SPE 155124

to increase the pH up to the point where precipitation starts; this is in addition to the amount required for the precipitation of
the divalent cations.

Precipitation of the low soluble salts (salts of divalent cations) takes place at pH~9 for the carbonates and >9.6 for the
Mg(OH)2. A CO2 content that is too low results in the need for extra carbonate injection (in the form of Na2CO3) in addition
to the NaOH to promote the precipitation. If the amount of CO2 is very low, the alkalinity injection would be only Na2CO3.
In this project there is a high content of CO2 in the gas and thus also in the Rich MEG. To optimize the Reclaimer size,
different operating pressures of the Rich MEG Flash Drum were evaluated.

From the pH mapping study it was found that the optimal flashing conditions for CO2 in the Rich MEG Flash Drum was as
follows: (i) Case 1 – 1 bar; (ii) Case 2 – 1.5 bar; Case 3 – 2 bar. At the above pressures there is no need for Na2CO3 in any of
the cases. The consumption of NaOH is summarised in Table 9 below. Some Na2CO3 is however required to be injected into
the MEG Flash Separator (in Reclaimer); this is required to remove any Ca2+ and Mg2+ that may not have been removed in
the pretreatment. At high concentration the calcium and magnesium can come together with Cl- ions to form a complex with
MEG. Such complexes have high viscosity and high freezing point and should be avoided.

NaOH is recommended as the alkalinity source needed to increase the pH of the system as it has less impact on the Reclaimer
size compared to KOH; this is due to a lower molecular weight of the cation which results in a lower mass of salts produced
from the injection of alkalinity. To minimize injection volume and storage tank capacity requirements, 50 wt% NaOH is
suggested.

To avoid precipitation at the subsea injection points the Lean MEG needs to be neutralized. The quantity of acid required is
given in the report and summarized in the Table 9.

The success criterion for the MultiScale simulation was to inject enough alkalinity to remove divalent cations to less than 1
mg/L (except Mg2+). This however leaves some residual Mg2+ in the Rich MEG which will preferentially precipitate when
the pH is increased in the reboiler. If the pH is increased to the extent necessary for removal of all the Mg(OH) 2 from the
pretreatment vessel, both the alkalinity injection and the acid injection will be significantly increased and so therefore will the
slip stream size.

The Reclaimer in the initial module will be designed for Case 1 (14.5m3/h) which is 1/3 the size of the Case 2. The Reclaimer
in the future module will be designed for Case 2 with a 25% slip stream of the Lean MEG. The result will be 3 equally sized
vessels. The information regarding the upstream conditions for Case 3 were not fixed and thus the chemical consumption
rates and overall salt formation are preliminary. To avoid oversizing the Reclaimers based on assumed data given in Case 3,
it has been agreed to allow an increase in the salt concentration in the Lean MEG from 20 to 30 g/L in order to keep the
Reclaimer sized at 14.5 m3/h (each). This concentration is far below the solubility limit of NaCl at sea bed conditions and the
slip stream size predicted for Case 2 will cover Case 3.

An evaluation of injecting the alkalinity in the Lean MEG rather than the Rich MEG was also considered and simulated for
Case 1 for the purpose of comparison to the pretreatment procedure. The size of the slip stream was found to be similar to
that of pretreatment dosing with 1 bar in the Flash Separator (12%). This alternative was not recommended due to ~4 times
more scaling potential in the reboiler, which is the largest unit/vessel with the most comprehensive cleaning procedure and is
critical for availability. The chemical consumption would be 0.28 m3/day of K2CO3 (40%), which in volume is not much
different than the optimized pressure Case 1 shown in Table 9 for the pretreatment design. The results are detailed in the
report.

Scale inhibitor will be injected at the wellhead. Once mixed with the Rich MEG, it might impair the quality of the
precipitation in the pretreatment sections, hence the thorough removal of divalent salts, including mercury which takes place
upstream of the MEG pretreatment unit.

Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

 Simulations have been performed on a conservative way assuming the production of 100% formation water and the
highest possible Well Head temperature. In those conditions, we did not predict any risk of scaling inside reservoir A
wells and reservoir B wells. Considering the production of some condensed water associated with formation water thus
leading to a dilution of scaling ions; consequently there is no need of downhole scale inhibitor injection for both A and B
reservoirs.
SPE 155124 7

 Reservoir A and reservoir B formation waters are compatible; therefore the segregation of waters is not necessary to
avoid the risk of mineral scaling.
 MEG is injected continuously at the Well Head in order to prevent hydrates in case of shutdown.
 Two trains for MEG regeneration are required; one train could be cleaned during the operation of the second one.
 The simulations showed that some scaling risk would be possible just downstream of the well head in case of production
of more than 70m3/day of formation water, but taking into account the presence of a significant amount of condensed
water, we do not think that some scaling might occur in transport lines in case of injection of a Lean MEG with a low
salinity, low calcium concentration and without alkalinity.
 The Lean MEG specifications have a significant impact on the risk of scaling. The specifications of the Lean MEG are as
follows: with a content of soluble salts at a maximum of 2%, a level of divalent cations lower than 10mg/Kg, oxygen
concentration lower than 300ppb, pH value around 6 and a low to very low alkalinity.
 The quantities of NaOH and HCl required for pretreatment are equal to 15 m3/d on average and 17 m3/d at the peak.
 The quality of Lean MEG will depend on the efficiency of MEG regeneration and reclaiming processes. Whatever the
organic acids content in Rich MEG, some scaling might occur in MEG regeneration unit due to temperature as high as
130°C and the unavoidable increase concentration of divalent cations.
 Calcium sulphate scaling risk has not been predicted, a low risk of barium sulphate scaling was identified but easily
manageable, thus the main mineral susceptible to precipitate would be calcium carbonate.
 Simulation results showed that the option of treatment of 10 or 20% of the Lean MEG would lead quickly to calcium
carbonate scaling downstream the well head at formation water ratio higher than 5% in the case of reservoir A.
 Some calcium carbonate scaling might also occur in Central Processing Unit upstream of MEG regeneration and
reclaiming units at pressures lower than 5bar.
 Calcium carbonate scaling might occur at low pressures in surface installations upstream MEG regeneration and
reclaiming units. A low and uncertain risk of barium sulphate scaling has also been identified thus a scale inhibitor able to
prevent both from carbonates and sulphates deposits could be injected.

6. References
1. Tomson, M.B., Kan, A.T. and Gonigmin Fu (2005) Inhibition of barite scale in the presence of hydrate inhibitors. SPE
Journal, 256-266 pp.
2. Van Son, K. and Wallace, C. (2000) Reclamation/regeneration of glycol used for hydrate inhibition. Deep Offshore
Technology.
3. Seiersten, M., Brendsdal, E., Deshmukh, S., Dugstad, A., Endrestol, G., Ek, A., Watterud, G., Andreassen, J.P. and
Flaten, E.M. (2010) Development of a simulator for ethylene glycol loops based on solution thermodynamics and particle
formation kinetics. Nace International Corrosion Conference. 7 pages.
4. Barmashenko, V. I., Chviruk, V. P. and Tsypenyuk, P. B. The activation of carbon steel in the presence of mercury (II),
Elektrokhimiya, 18, 146-148 (1982).
5. Bodle, W. W., Attari, A. and Serauskas, R., Considerations for mercury in LNG Operation, Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on LNG, Volume 1, 7-14 April 1980, Kyoto, Institute of Gas Technology.
6. Coade, R. and Coldham, D. The interaction of mercury and aluminium in heat exchangers in a natural gas plants,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83, 336-342 (2006).
7. Leeper, J. E. Mercury-LNG’s problem, Hydrocarbon Processing, November, 237-240 (1980).
8. Wilhelm, S. M., The effect of elemental mercury on engineering materials used in ammonia plants, Process Safety
Progress, 10, 189-193 (1991).
9. Anderko, A.; Wang, P., Springer, R.D., Lencka, M.M. and Kosinski, J.J. (2010) Prediction of mineral scaling in oil and
gas production using a comprehensive thermodynamic model. Nace International Corrosion Conference, 20 pages.
10. Haiping Lu; Kan, A.T. and Tomson, M.B. (2010) Effect of monoethylene glycol on carbonate equilibrium and calcite
solubility in gas/monoethylene glycol/NaCl/water mixed systels. SPE Journal; 714-725 pp.
11. Jordan, M.M., Feasey, N.D. and Johnston, C.J. (2005) Inorganic scale control with MEG/methanol – treated produced
fluids. SPE 95034.
8 SPE 155124

Table 1: Reservoir conditions

Parameter Case 1 Case 2 (Yr 16) Case 3 (Yr 22.5)

Reservoir A Reservoir A Reservoir B Reservoir A Reservoir B
(Yr 9.5)
Pressure (bar) 312 167 419 167 419
Temperature (°C) 152 152 170 152 170

Table 2: Formation water analysis

Ion Reservoir A (mg/l) Reservoir B (mg/l)

Calcium, Ca 2000 1670
Magnesium, Mg 32 28
Iron, Fe (soluble) 5.3 6.3
Sodium, Na 2800 5800
Potassium, K 100 120
Strontium, Sr 7.2 49
Barium, Ba 5.1 28
Chloride, Cl 6200 10840
Sulphate, SO4 86 62
Bicarbonate, HCO3 1100 890
Carbonate, CO3 <1 <1
Hydroxide, OH <1 <1
Summation of ions 12336 19493

Table 3: Formation water composition used in the simulations

Ion Reservoir A (mg/l) Reservoir B (mg/l)

Case 1 (mg/l) Case 2+3 (mg/l) Case 2+3 (mg/l)
Calcium, Ca 2000 2000 1670
Magnesium, Mg 32 32 28
Iron, Fe (soluble) 5.3 5.3 6.3
Sodium, Na 2800 2800 5800
Potassium, K 100 100 120
Strontium, Sr 7.2 7.2 49
Barium, Ba 5.1 5.1 28
Chloride, Cl (Note 1) 7221 7225 11526
Sulphate, SO4 86 86 62
Bicarbonate, HCO3 (Note 2) 1100 1100 890
Carbonate, CO3 <1 <1 <1
Hydroxide, OH <1 <1 <1
Total alkalinity (Note 2) 12336 12336 19493
Note 1: Adjusted to give electroneutrality in the water
Note 2: The given bicarbonate concentration is not used in the evaluation. It is replaced by a total alkalinity (including
carboxylates and bicarbonate) which is estimated by setting SR=1 for CaCO3 at reservoir conditions. The total alkalinity is
given in mg/l (using the molweight of HCO3-) to enable comparison with input values. It is impossible to give a HCO3-
concentration for this case; it depends on the total alkalinity and varies with reservoir pressure and temperature.
SPE 155124 9

Table 4: Formation water properties

Parameter Reservoir A Reservoir B

pH 6.4 - 8.2 6.0 – 7.7
Resistivity (at 25°C) 0.559 – 0.868 ohm-m 0.352 – 0.490 ohm-m
Total dissolved solids (mg/l) 6290 – 13000 mg/l 16280 – 19000 mg/l
Specific gravity 1.006 – 1.017 1.015

Table 5: Condensed water rates; values calculated by MultiScale compared to input data

Source of data Reservoir A Reservoir B

Case 1 (m3/d) Case 2 (m3/d) Case 3 (m3/d) Case 2 (m3/d) Case 3 (m3/d)
Input data 1927 826 890.4 1620 1140
MultiScale 1398 661 669 1443 832

Table 6: Main hydrocarbon components

Parameter Mole (%)

Reservoir A Yr 9.5 Reservoir B Yr 16
Nitrogen 0.4406 0.54
CO2 8.4543 17.1892
Methane 70.2763 75.4163
Ethane 10.3314 4.1698
Propane 4.1978 1.0399
i-Butane 0.6992 0.29
n-Butane 1.2481 0.24
i-Pentane 0.4989 0.16
n-Pentane 0.429 0.08
C6 0.5277 0.15
C7 0.6559 0.18
C8 0.7045 0.18
C9 0.3959 0.11
C10+ 1.1358 0.25
H2S 0.005 0.005

Table 7: Water, MEG and gas production flowrates. Numbers in italic are calculated

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Reservoir A Reservoir A Reservoir B Reservoir A Reservoir B
Condensed water flowrate (m3/d) 1927.2 825.6 1620 890.4 1034.4
Formation water flowrate (m3/d) 381.6 218.4 1142.4 736.8 1140.0
Rich MEG flowrate (m3/d) 4917.3 2187.2 5783.3 3259.9 4346.5
Lean MEG flowrate (m3/d) 2618.4 1146.7 3034.1 1631.3 2179.9
Rich MEG concentration, all 50.1 49.4 49.5 47.3 47.5
condensed (wt%)
Total hydrocarbon rate (MSm3/d) 47.4 16.3 32.7 16.5 18.8
10 SPE 155124

Table 8: Estimated organic acid production rates in the gas phase

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Reservoir A Reservoir A Reservoir B Reservoir A Reservoir B
Acetic in gas (mol%) 8.51 E-05 1.50 E-04 1.01 E-04 1.50 E-04 1.01 E-04
Propanoic in gas (mol%) 3.31 E-04 5.87 E-04 3.34 E-04 5.87 E-04 3.34 E-04
Acetic in gas (kg/d) 107.6 66.1 88.0 66.1 88.0
Propanoic in gas (kg/d) 515.7 318.9 358.8 318.9 358.8
Condensed water flowrate (m3/d) 1927.2 825.6 1620 890.4 1034.4
Acetic in condensed water (mg/l) 55.8 80.0 54.4 74.2 85.1
Propanoic in condensed water (mg/l) 267.6 386.3 221.5 358.1 346.9

Table 9: Summary of the main findings for the three production cases

Case Case 2 Case 3

Slip stream [% of Lean 13 25 25
MEG] @ 20ºC
Lean MEG [m3/h] @ 20ºC 109.1 174.2 158.8
Pressure in RM Flash Drum 1 1.5 2
[bar]
pH in RM Flash Drum 5.60 5.56 5.5
pH in Pretreatment vessel 9.12 8.96 9.04
NaOH, 50% [m3/h] 0.20 0.44 0.56
HCl, 32% [m3/h] 0.39 0.10 0.20
Na2CO3, 20% [m3/h] 0.003 0.016 0.023
SPE 155124 11

Figure 1: Overall MEG Package Configuration

 12 SPE 155124

Figure 2: Overview of the MEG Pretreatment Unit

Figure 3: Overview of the MEG Reclaiming Unit

View publication stats