Public Courses

In-House Courses
Operator Training

Gas Sweetening-Part 1: Comparison of Amines

Hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide are the principal objectionable acid gas constituents often present in natural
gas, synthetic gas, and various refinery gas streams. These acid gas constituents must be removed for corrosion
prevention in gas pipelines and process equipment and for health and safety reasons. Reference [1] provides current
acceptable concentration levels for these acid gases in gas streams. Hydrogen sulfide removal is also often important
for production of sulfur, which is used to create sulfuric acid and fertilizers. Carbon dioxide removal is also important
for its capturing and sequestering, as well as for enhanced oil recovery.

In natural gas treating, there are several processes available for removing the acid gases. Aqueous solutions of
alkanolamines are the most widely used [1]. The alkanolamines process is characterized as mass transfer enhanced
by chemical reactions in which acid gases react directly or react through an acid-base buffer mechanism with an
alkanolamines to form nonvolatile ionic species. For further detail of sour gas treating refer to references [1-4].

Several alkanolamines have been used for acid gas removal from natural gas streams. In this study only a primary
monoethanolamine (MEA), a secondary diethanolamine (DEA) and a tertiary methydeithanolamine (MDEA) are
considered. MEA has the highest reactivity and MDEA has the highest selectivity.

In this TOTM, we will study and compare the performance of these three amines by simulation of a simplified process
flow diagram for removal of H2S and CO2 from a sour gas stream. The H2S and CO2 concentration in the sweet gas,
amine solution circulation rate, reboiler duty, amine losses, pump power, and lean-rich heat exchanger (HEX) duty
are calculated and plotted for a wide range of steam rates needed to regenerate the rich solution. In addition, the
optimized steam rates and corresponding design variables are determined and reported.

Case Study:

For the purpose of illustration, we considered sweetening of 1.416106 std m3/d (50 MMSCFD) of a sour and wet
natural gas with the composition, pressure, and temperature presented in Table 1. ProMax [5] simulation software
with Amine Sweetening PR property package was used to perform all of the calculations.

Table 1. Feed composition, volumetric flow rate and conditions

The following specifications/assumptions were made:

Contactor Column

1. Feed sour gas is saturated with water

2. Number of theoretical stages = 8

3. Pressure drop = 35 kPa (5 psi)

4. Lean amine solution temperature = Sour gas feed temperature + 5.5 (10)

Regenerator Column

1. Number of theoretical stages = 11 (excluding condenser and reboiler)

2. Rich solution feed temperature = 98.9 (210)

3. Rich solution feed pressure = 245 kPa (35 psi)

4. Condenser temperature = 48.9 (120)

5. Pressure drop = 35 kPa (5 psi)

6. Bottom pressure = 138 kPa (20 psig)

7. Reboiler duty = Specified Steam Ratio times circulation rate (Refer to Table 2)
Heat Exchangers

1. Lean amine cooler pressure drop = 21 kPa (3 psi)

2. Rich side pressure = 41 kPa (6 psi)

3. Lean side pressure = 35 kPa (5 psi)

Pump

1. Discharge Pressure = Sour gas feed pressure + 35 kPa (5 psi)

2. Efficiency = 65 %

Lean Amine Circulation Rate and Concentration

1. Varied to meet the target acid gas loading in the rich solution shown in Table 2

Rich Solution Expansion Valve

1. Pressure drop in first expansion valve (vlve 100) = 6310 kPa (915 psi)

2. Pressure drop in the second expansion valve (vlve 101) = 303 kPa (44 psi)

A simplified process flow diagram for the case studied is presented in Figure 1 [1].

Table 2. Specified amine concentration, target rich solution acid gas loading, and steam ratios [6
]

Results and Discussions:

Based on the description and specifications presented in the previous section, the process flow diagram in Figure 1
was simulated by ProMax [5]. The simulation was performed for steam ratios presented in Table 2. For each steam
ratio and each amine, the H2S and CO2 concentration in the sweet gas, lean amine circulation rate, reboiler duty, and
the amine make up to compensate the losses due to vaporization from top of contactor and regenerator columns, and
flashed gas in the separator are calculated. The variation of these properties as a function of steam rate is presented
in Figures 2 through 8.
Figure 2. Sweet gas H2S content vs steam rate

Figure 3. Sweet gas CO2 content vs steam rate

Figures 2 and 3 present the variation of H2S and CO2 concentration in the sweet gas stream as a function of steam
rate for MEA, DEA, and MDEA. Figure 2 also indicates that the minimum steam rate to achieve common pipeline
specification of H2S concentration of 4 PPM. It should be noted that for the same H2S concentration in the sweet gas,
MDEA requires the lowest steam rate. Figure 3 indicates that both MEA and DEA do much better at removal of
CO2 than MDEA. Because MDEA requires the lowest steam rate, it is a preferred amine for selective removal of H2S.

The required amine circulation rate as a function of steam rate is presented in Figure 4 for MEA, DEA, and MDEA.
Figure 4 indicates that MDEA requires the smallest circulation rate for regeneration. In addition, the MDEA circulation
rate is much lower than that of the other two amines. This is because MDEA has a much higher concentration
(smaller amount of water) and can have higher maximum allowable acid gas loading in the rich solution (Refer to
Table 2) compare to MEA and DEA.

The required reboiler duty as a function of steam rate is presented in Figure 5 for MEA, DEA, and MDEA. Figure 5
indicates that MDEA requires the smallest heat duty due to its very low circulation rate.

Figure 6 presents the amine make up as a function of steam rate for the three amines. This figure indicates that MEA
has the highest and DEA the lowest vaporization loss. MDEA loss is between MEA and DEA because the normal
boiling point of MDEA is between that of MEA and DEA (refer to Table 2). It should be noted that this loss does not
include entrainment (mechanical) from the top of contactor. Amine vaporization loss from top of the regenerator
column was practically zero for all three amines. The mechanical (entrainment) loss is normally much higher than
vaporization loss.

Figures 7 and 8 present the required pump power and lean-rich amine heat exchanger duty as a function of steam
rate for the three amines, respectively. These two figures also indicate the MDEA requires the lowest pump power
and heat exchanger duty due to its lowest circulation rate.
Figure 4. Circulation rate vs steam rate

Figure 5. Reboiler duty vs steam rate

Figure 6. Total amine vaporization loss vs steam rate

Figure 7. Pump power vs steam rate

Figure 8. Lean-Rich HEX duty vs steam rate

Optimized Condition

For each amine the optimized/minimum steam rate to meet sweet gas H2S content of 4 PPM was determined and the
corresponding parameters are calculated and reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Optimized parameters for three amines

Table 4 indicates that the optimized reboiler duty for DEA and MDEA are within the approximate guideline provided by
the GPSA data book [3]; however, MEA reboiler duty is below the approximate guideline. According to the GPSA data
book, reboiler duty varies with regenerator overhead reflux ratios, rich solution feed temperature to regenerator and
reboiler temperature. In this case the same values of the above mentioned variables were used for the three amines.
For a detailed comparison, for each amine the optimized variables should be selected.

Table 4. Comparison of reboiler duty with GPSA data book [3

Conclusions:

Based on the results obtained for the case study considered in this TOTM, the following conclusions can be made:

1. MDEA is selective in removal of H2S and allows some of the CO2 to slip through (Figures 2 and 3).

2. For a specified H2S content in the sweet gas, regeneration of MDEA requires:

1. the lowest steam rate (reboiler duty).

2. the lowest pump power.

3. the lowest lean-rich HEX duty.

3. MDEA vaporization loss is between MEA and DEA.

4. Amine vaporization loss from the top of the regenerator column is practically zero.

5. The entrainment (mechanical) losses are much greater than the vaporization losses

To learn more about similar cases and how to minimize operational problems, we suggest attending our G6 (Gas
Treating and Sulfur Recovery), G4 (Gas Conditioning and Processing), PF81 (CO2 Surface Facilities), PF4 (Oil
Production and Processing Facilities), and PL4 (Fundamentals of Onshore and Offshore Pipeline
Systems) courses.

John M. Campbell Consulting (JMCC) offers consulting expertise on this subject and many others. For more
information about the services JMCC provides, visit our website at www.jmcampbellconsulting.com, or email us
atconsulting@jmcampbell.com.

By: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Reference:

1. Maddox, R.N., and Morgan, D.J., Gas Conditioning and Processing, Volume 4: Gas treating and sulfur
Recovery, Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma, 1998.
 2. Campbell, J.M., Gas Conditioning and Processing, Volume 2: The Equipment Modules, 9th Edition,
1st Printing, Editors Hubbard, R. and Snow McGregor, K., Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma,
2014.

3. GPSA Engineering Data Book, Section 21, Volume 2, 13th Edition, Gas Processors and Suppliers
Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2012.

4. Moshfeghian, M., Bell, K.J., Maddox, Reaction Equilibria for Acid Gas Systems, Proceedings of Lawrence
Reid Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, 1977

5. ProMax 3.2, Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc., Bryan, Texas, 2014.

6. Sour Gas Processing Training Manual, Bryan Research and Engineering, Inc., Bryan, Texas, 2014.

Did you enjoy this post? Do you have a question?

Leave us a Comment below!

Want to read more articles like this?

Subscribe to our RSS Feed or visit the Tip of the Month Archives for past articles.

Posted on July 2, 2014 at 8:10 pm

6 comments

Categories: Gas Processing, Process Facilities, Refining

Recieve new post updates: Entries (RSS)

Recieve follow up comments updates: RSS 2.0

Written by Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian is an instructor and consultant with John M Campbell and Company (JMC). He is the
author of most of Campbell Tips of the Month and develops technical software for JMC. He has 35 years teaching
experience in universities (Oklahoma State University, University of Shiraz, University of Sydney and University of
Qatar) as well as for oil and gas industries. Dr. Moshfeghian joined JMC in 1990 as a part time consultant and then as
full time instructor/consultant in 2005. Previous to joining JMC, Dr. Moshfeghian was a Senior Research Scientist at
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research and Professor of Chemical Engineering at Shiraz University. Dr. Moshfeghian
is a senior member of AIChE and has published numerous technical papers on thermodynamic properties, and
Process Engineering. Dr. Moshfeghian has presented invited papers in international conferences. He holds a B.S., an
M.S. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, all from Oklahoma State University.

View all posts by: Dr. Mahmood Moshfeghian

Previous post

Next Post

6 Responses to Gas Sweetening-Part 1: Comparison of Amines

1. Amr Atef says:

July 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

 Nice blog sir ,
I have few questions tho
i dont quite understand how in figure 2 for MEA the H2S concentration increases as we increase the steam
ratio ?
i suppose that if we increase steam ratio the lean amine H2S content will be lower which means the H2S in
sweet gas will be lower too ?

The behavior of MEA in all charts is quite weird , i hope you would explain it in specific , Thanks !

Reply

2. jips says:

July 16, 2014 at 8:41 am

dear sir ,
why we keep some ppm h2s(200ppm h2s)in lean amine after rich amine processing?
why we not keep 0 ppm h2s in lean amine?

Reply

3. Odibo arthur says:

July 23, 2014 at 5:23 am

Sir,
your gas articles are very educative. Kindly send me the edition of April to date 2014.

Thank

Reply

4. stephen A says:

July 28, 2014 at 11:42 pm

I am new here. I want to receive new post.

Reply

5. manger says:

May 19, 2015 at 5:17 am

I know this site provides quality dependent articles

and additional data, is there any other web site which presents these kinds of information in quality?

Reply

6. vpen says:

May 20, 2015 at 1:55 am

 Everyone loves what you guys are usually up too.
This sort of clever work and reporting! Keep up the
amazing works guys Ive included you guys to my blogroll.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Submit Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Search
Search for:

o English TOTM Home

o Spanish TOTM Home

Archives
o June 2015

o May 2015

o April 2015

o March 2015

o February 2015

o January 2015

o December 2014

o November 2014

o October 2014

o September 2014

o August 2014

o July 2014

o June 2014

o May 2014

o April 2014

o March 2014

o February 2014

o January 2014

o December 2013

o November 2013
o October 2013

o September 2013

o August 2013

o July 2013

o June 2013

o May 2013

o April 2013

o March 2013

o February 2013

o January 2013

o December 2012

o November 2012

o October 2012

o September 2012

o August 2012

o July 2012

o June 2012

o May 2012

o April 2012

o March 2012

o February 2012

o January 2012
o December 2011

o November 2011

o October 2011

o September 2011

o August 2011

o July 2011

o June 2011

o May 2011

o April 2011

o March 2011

o February 2011

o January 2011

o December 2010

o November 2010

o October 2010

o September 2010

o August 2010

o July 2010

o June 2010

o May 2010

o April 2010

o March 2010
o February 2010

o January 2010

o December 2009

o November 2009

o October 2009

o September 2009

o August 2009

o July 2009

o June 2009

o May 2009

o April 2009

o March 2009

o February 2009

o January 2009

o December 2008

o November 2008

o October 2008

o September 2008

o August 2008

o July 2008

o June 2008

o May 2008
o April 2008

o March 2008

o February 2008

o January 2008

o December 2007

o November 2007

o October 2007

o September 2007

o August 2007

o July 2007

o June 2007

o May 2007

o April 2007

o March 2007

o February 2007

o January 2007

o December 2006

o November 2006

o October 2006

o September 2006

o August 2006

o July 2006
o June 2006

o May 2006

o April 2006

o March 2006

o February 2006

o January 2006

o December 2005

o November 2005

o October 2005

o September 2005

o August 2005

o July 2005

o June 2005

o Complete Archives

o Free Subscription

Topics
o Gas Processing

o Mechanical

o Pipeline

o Process Facilities

o Process Safety

o Refining
o Reliability Engineering

o Supply Chain Management

o Uncategorized

o Water and Corrosion

Meta
o Register

o Log in

o Entries RSS

o Comments RSS

o WordPress.org

Training Helpful Links Company Information

Public Courses Request Information Contact Us

In-House Courses Consulting Services About Us

Operator Training Tip of the Month Job Postings

Online Course Previews Campbell Forums Testimonials

HGPA Educational Sessions Conversion Tool Download Catalog (PDF)

Course Schedule John M. Campbell & Co. Request Catalog

Books
Oil and Gas Training Instructor Bios
GCAP Software
Facilities Engineering Training FAQ
GCAP Mobile
Liquefied Natural Gas Training Links
Continuing Education
Petroleum Engineering Credits Kindle Disclaimer
Courses
Follow us on Twitter

John M. Campbell & Co.

1215 Crossroads Blvd.
Suite 230
Norman, OK. 73072