Simple Correlation Analyzes Solubility of Acid Gas and Light Alkanes in Triethylene Glycol

Alireza Bahadori
Department of Petroleum Engineering, National Iranian South Oil Company Ahwaz, Iran

Saeid Mokhatab
Gas-Engineering Consultant Tehran, Iran

Abstract Hydrocarbon and acid gas solubility are major factors when considering the use of a physical solvent. Quantifying this amount of absorption is critical in order to minimize hydrocarbon losses or to optimize hydrocarbon recovery and these present an environmental or safety hazard when they are discharged from the top of the regenerator. Considering this, a new correlation that covers full range of dehydration operating condition has been developed in order to analyze the amount of acid gas and lower alkanes absorbed versus the partial pressure of these components and the absorber temperature in different triethylene glycol (TEG) circulation rates. This article evaluates the effects of circulated TEG flowrates on the solubility of acid gas and lower alkanes in TEG and provides comparisons with the experimental data for improving the model. Results show the solubility of acid gases is higher than light alkanes, however, since the mole fraction of light alkanes in contactor's feed gas is more than acid gas, the solubility of light alkanes is therefore important and has to be accurately considered in design of TEG dehydration units. Introduction Glycol dehydration of natural gas employs ethylene glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG) or triethylene glycol (TEG) to remove water from the gas stream. However, the most commonly used glycol is triethylene glycol. Diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol may also be used in dehydration applications; however, DEG and EG are often not considered due to dry gas water content requirements. TEG has a higher degradation temperature and can be regenerated to a higher lean concentration with no modifications to the standard regenerator reboiler. However, EG and DEG can meet water content specifications when used with enhanced regeneration systems. Enhanced regeneration is any system that improves glycol regeneration to achieve a "leaner" or more concentrated glycol solution. Enhanced regeneration could be the injection of stripping gas into the reboiler, azeotropic regeneration, or other proprietary processes. The costs associated with the use of EG or DEG would be increased glycol makeup and some form of enhanced regeneration to obtain a more concentrated glycol to achieve the dry gas water content (Grizzle, 1993). More stringent emissions regulations have forced the use of some methods of minimizing hydrocarbon pickup or disposing of the emissions in glycol dehydration units. When natural gas is dehydrated with TEG, some of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8) and acid gases (H2S, CO2) are absorbed in the TEG. Regeneration of the rich TEG solution liberates the light hydrocarbons and acid gas components. The amount of these compounds absorbed and consequently liberated from the glycol

depends on their concentrations in the wet gas being dehydrated and on the contactors pressure and temperature. The amount of acid gases removed by the glycol depends on several parameters:

Concentration of acid gases in the feed gas. The effect of composition increases with pressure, particularly for a gas that contains CO2 or H2S or both. Contactor operating pressure and temperature. Glycol circulation rate.

When sour natural gas is dehydrated with TEG, a substantial amount of H2S and CO2 and light alkanes are absorbed in the TEG. Regeneration of the rich TEG solution liberates the acid-gas and light alkanes components. The amount of these compounds absorbed and consequently liberated from the glycol depends on their concentrations in the sour gas being dehydrated and on the contactors pressure and temperature. Emissions from glycol dehydration units are a major environmental concern. In most cases the hydrocarbon and acid gas removal is undesirable, and should be minimized. In some cases, which include hydrocarbon recovery (Bahadori, 2006a), the pickup should be maximized or at least optimized. There are no standard sampling and analytical methods established by regulatory agencies for determining emissions from glycol dehydrators, and the methods initially used by the industry showed significant variability in results (Grizzle, 1993; Jou et al., 1994) In an actual dehydration facility, the glycol is regenerated to about 99% purity or higher. The absorbed amount of gases depends on the amount of glycol circulated. If the glycol is not regenerated to this purity, then the amount of gas absorbed per unit of lean glycol circulated would be slightly less than in the proposed equations. Both temperature and pressure also affect hydrocarbon absorption. In general, the lower the temperature and the higher the pressure, the more hydrocarbons will be dissolved in the physical solvent. In some cases, however, the hydrocarbon solubility actually increases with temperature (Jou et al., 1994). Figure 1 illustrates a typical TEG dehydration unit. As can be seen, the regenerated glycol is pumped to the top tray of the contactor (absorber). The glycol absorbs water as it flows down through the contactor counter-currently to the gas flow. Water-rich glycol is removed from the bottom of the contactor, passes through the reflux condenser coil, flashes off most of the soluble gas in the flash tank, and flows through the rich-lean heat exchanger to the regenerator. In the regenerator, absorbed water is distilled from the glycol at near-atmospheric pressure by application of heat. The regenerated lean glycol leaving the surge drum, partially cools in the lean-rich exchanger, and pumps through the glycol cooler before being recirculated to the contactor (Bahadori and Zeidani, 2006). Glycol will absorb some hydrocarbons and acid gases at the high pressure of the contactor. Glycol has a special affinity for light alkanes, such as cyclic hydrocarbons as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX) as well as polar gases like H2S and CO2 (Bahadori, 2006b). Heavier paraffinic hydrocarbons are essentially insoluble in TEG. Aromatic hydrocarbons, however, are very soluble in TEG, and significant amounts of aromatic hydrocarbons may be absorbed in TEG at contactor conditions. This may present an environmental or safety hazard when they are discharged from the top of the regenerator. Upon regeneration of the glycol, all absorbed gases are flashed off. From here they can be routed to fuel, flare, or gas-recovery system.

Figure 1 Schematic of a typical TEG dehydration unit

New Proposed Model Equation 1 presents a new correlation in which four coefficients are used to correlate solubility and partial pressure:
2 3 x = a + bPri + cPri + dPri

(1)

Where: 2 3 a = A a + B a Tri + C a Tri + D a Tri

2 3 b = A b + B b Tri + C b Tri + D b Tri

(2) (3) (4) (5)

c = A c + B c Tri + d = Ad +

2 C c Tri

3 D c Tri 3 D d Tri

2 B d Tri + C d Tri

In the above equations, X is the acid gas or light alkane component mole fraction in TEG, Pr and Tr are reduced partial pressure and reduced temperature of each component, respectively. Tuned coefficients in Equations 2 to 4 are also given in Table 1. These tuned coefficients are changed if more accurate experimental data are available by proposed numerical model.

Table 1 Tuned coefficients in Equations 2 to 5

Equations 6 and 7 also show the mole fraction conversion of components to volumetric dimensions. 23645x [ Mx + 150.2 (1 x ) ] Mx 1 [ Mx + 150.2 (1 x ) ] VTEG = 1.126 V= (6) (7)

Where, V is the standard volume of acid gas or light alkane component in TEG (cubic meter), M is the molecular weight of acid gas or light alkane components, and VTEG is the volume of TEG (cubic meter). Considering Equations 6 and 7, TEG circulation flowrate can be calculated as: V ( q TEG ) Q= VTEG

(8)

Where, qTEG is circulated TEG (cubic meter per day).

Case Study Table 2 shows the composition and operating condition of a typical contactor feed. In this study the solubility of acid-gas in TEG in different TEG circulation rates and different contactor temperatures and pressures are evaluated and the effect of TEG circulation rate on solubility of acid gases and light alkanes components are analyzed. Some improvements in previous developed equations are finally presented.

Table 2 Typical composition for wet gas inlet to contactor

Component C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 NC6 H2O H2S CO2 N2 C7+ C7+ MW C7+ SP. GR. P (KPa) T (C) Inlet gas water content(KG/HR) Mole % 0.5202 0.1504 0.1180 0.0167 0.0462 0.0098 0.0090 0.0006 0.0025 0.0282 0.0856 0.0127 0.0002 81.290 0.7646 3700 42 115.2

Tables 3 and 4 present comparisons between some experimental data for H2S and CO2 solubility in TEG with the obtained results of the new developed model. As can be seen, the average absolute deviation percentage of the new model for predicting H2S and CO2 solubility in TEG are 3.0296% and 1.9394%, respectively. Tables 5 to 7 also give comparisons between some experimental data for methane, ethane, and propane solubilities in TEG with the obtained results of the new developed model. As can be seen, the average absolute deviation percentage of the new model for predicting methane, ethane, and propane solubilities in TEG are 3.3075%, 3.139%, and 2.7903%, respectively. In lights of the above and considering the simplicity of the proposed correlation, it is recommended to use the new developed model against of using routine graphical methods or conventional commercial softwares.
Table 3 Comparing new model results for predicting the solubility of H2S in TEG with experimental data Pressure KPa (abs) 51.2 112 432 969 1452 1794 Temperature C 25 25 25 25 25 25 H2S Mole fraction at (experimenta l) [2] 0.03657 0.07131 0.2436 0.4701 0.6412 0.8089 H2S Mole fraction (calculated) 0.0339 0.0747 0.2513 0.4595 0.6407 0.817 Absolute Deviation Percent (%) (ADP) 7.8761 4.5382 3.0641 2.3069 0.078 0.9914

1919 1958 60.4 261 1009 1949 2468 85.5 327 971 2000 11 113 676 1920 29.9 132 462 1890

25 25 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 100 100 100 100 125 125 125 125

0.8958 0.8988 0.9426 0.92670 0.0225 0.0217 0.09328 0.098 0.31079 0.3153 0.5122 0.5205 0.6244 0.6475 0.021 0.0193 0.074 0.0756 0.1994 0.2055 0.36 0.34939 0.00206 0.0021 0.01882 0.0185 0.1014 0.1029 0.2607 0.2721 0.0039 0.0042 0.01657 0.0159 0.05338 0.053 0.1989 0.1963 Average of Absolute Deviation (%)

0.3338 1.7158 3.6866 4.8163 1.4304 1.6205 3.6996 8.8083 2.1184 2.9684 3.0367 1.9048 1.7297 1.4577 4.1896 7.1429 4.2138 0.717 1.3245 3.0296

% AADP =

100 NOP

NOP

Calculated value Experiment al value 1 = 3.0296 % i

Table 4 Comparing new model results for predicting the solubility of CO2 in TEG with
experimental data Pressure KPa 467 750 1420 1500 3210 4870 6510 10420 15670 20250 105 709 2560 5710 7840 10720 15530 19780 129 710 750 2710 6160 10630 15480 Temperature C 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 CO2 Mole fraction (experimenta l) [2] 0.04084 0.064 0.1152 0.12 0.2464 0.3511 0.4338 0.4531 0.4613 0.4848 0.00651 0.04063 0.1367 0.2611 0.3305 0.3906 0.4328 0.4582 0.005515 0.03031 0.0315 0.111 0.2121 0.3164 0.38 CO2 Mole fraction (calculated) Absolute Deviation Percent (%) (ADP) 2.2967 4.7194 6.5693 7.9684 5.4127 0.0854 5.2402 3.8617 0.1515 1.3431 4.2647 0.5693 2.0774 1.9159 1.1631 2.011 0.2773 1.0141 6.0577 0.033 1.6825 5.0142 0.5159 0.4763 1.3756

0.04180 0.06717 0.12330 0.13039 0.26050 0.35140 0.41220 0.47130 0.46200 0.49140 0.00680 0.04040 0.13960 0.26620 0.32670 0.38290 0.43160 0.45360 0.00520 0.03030 0.03203 0.10570 0.21320 0.31490 0.38530

19490 1290 3180 4930 8260 10920 14940 18410 1770 3750 6490 9300 11840 14530 18310

75 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

0.4203 0.04205 0.09725 0.1471 0.2237 0.2749 0.3347 0.3759 0.04902 0.09805 0.1582 0.2104 0.2513 0.2875 0.3397 Average of Absolute Deviation (%)

0.41870 0.04270 0.10030 0.14750 0.22290 0.27170 0.33080 0.37230 0.04870 0.09810 0.15760 0.20960 0.25050 0.28930 0.33910

0.3821 1.5222 3.0409 0.2712 0.3589 1.1778 1.179 0.9577 0.6528 0.051 0.3807 0.3817 0.3194 0.6261 0.1769 1.9394

% AADP =

100 NOP

NOP

Calculated value Experiment al value 1 = 1.9394 % i

Table 5 Comparing new model results for predicting the solubility of CH4 in TEG with experimental data Pressure KPa(abs) 113.5 366.1 960 2320 4800 6120 9240 12840 16280 19470 110.7 335.2 1010 2350 4520 7320 10190 13140 16830 109.2 328.7 393.4 905 2910 5350 7550 10540 13560 16630 Temperature C 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 CH4 Mole fraction at (experimenta l) [2] 0.000636 0.002022 0.005212 0.01193 0.02028 0.02776 0.03921 0.04907 0.05656 0.06379 0.000617 0.001859 0.005324 0.0119 0.02198 0.03326 0.04302 0.05243 0.06215 0.00059 0.001806 0.002129 0.004878 0.015 0.02638 0.03505 0.04654 0.05692 0.06586 CH4 Mole fraction (calculated) 0.00074 0.00200 0.00480 0.01110 0.02170 0.02700 0.03820 0.049 0.0573 0.0631 0.00057 0.00170 0.00510 0.01120 0.02060 0.03150 0.04120 0.0498 0.061 0.00055 0.00170 0.00204 0.00469 0.01465 0.02589 0.03518 0.046531 0.0565 0.0651 Absolute Deviation Percent (%) (ADP) 14.0541 1.1 8.5833 7.4775 6.5438 2.8148 2.644 0.1429 1.2914 1.0935 8.2456 9.3529 4.3922 6.25 6.699 5.5873 4.4174 5.2811 1.8852 7.2727 6.2353 4.3627 4.0085 2.3891 1.8926 0.3695 0.0193 0.7434 1.1674

19690 112.9 388.8 940 2510 5100 8080 10340 12890 15400 19240 369.9 928 2510 3860 6270 8750 11980 15140 18920

75 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

0.07432 0.000627 0.002182 0.005139 0.01345 0.02557 0.03923 0.04807 0.05818 0.06668 0.07842 0.002181 0.005305 0.01379 0.02094 0.03321 0.04453 0.05865 0.0708 0.084 Average of Absolute Deviation (%)

0.0721 0.00060 0.00210 0.00500 0.01300 0.02560 0.03890 0.04830 0.058 0.0667 0.0784 0.00200 0.00510 0.01370 0.02080 0.03290 0.04450 0.0584 0.0707 0.0838

3.0791 4.5 3.9048 2.78 3.4615 0.1172 0.8483 0.4762 0.3103 0.03 0.0255 9.05 4.0196 0.6569 0.6731 0.9422 0.0674 0.4281 0.1414 0.2387 3.3075

% AADP =

100 NOP NOP i

Calculated value Experiment al value 1 = 3.3075 % i

Table 6 Comparing new model results for predicting the solubility of C2H6 in TEG with experimental data Pressure KPa(abs) 110 156 305 983 2840 4260 7700 116 228 397 950 2100 3200 6490 9850 115 225 418 583 1010 2130 4280 7640 10140 112 Temperature C 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 100 C2H6 Mole fraction (experimenta l) [2] 0.0028 0.00399 0.00772 0.02348 0.06044 0.08037 0.08287 0.002457 0.004919 0.008381 0.01769 0.03841 0.0557 0.0866 0.09348 0.002121 0.004044 0.00761 0.01036 0.01688 0.03362 0.06103 0.08982 0.1002 0.00183 C2H6 Mole fraction (calculated) Absolute Deviation Percent (%) (ADP) 3.7037 2.3077 2.2785 4.9393 0.0992 3.1707 1.3452 1.72 2.4792 3.4691 5.4011 0.2338 1.8282 0.1156 0.2348 3.5909 1.3659 4.2466 2.5743 0.7059 0.826 0.1146 0.0223 0 3.6842

0.00270 0.00390 0.00790 0.02470 0.06050 0.07790 0.08400 0.00250 0.00480 0.00810 0.01870 0.03850 0.05470 0.08650 0.0937 0.0022 0.0041 0.0073 0.0101 0.017 0.0339 0.0611 0.0898 0.1002 0.0019

194 259 392 709 1500 3950 5690

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

0.003205 0.004074 0.006103 0.01068 0.02182 0.05236 0.07101 Average of Absolute Deviation (%)

0.0033 0.0045 0.0067 0.012 0.0244 0.0547 0.069

2.8788 9.4667 8.9104 11 10.5738 4.2779 2.913 3.139

% AADP =

100 NOP

NOP

Calculated value Experiment al value 1 = 3.139 % i

Table 7 Comparing new model results for predicting the solubility of C3H8 in TEG with experimental data Pressure KPa 15.9 46 57 122.1 127 231.6 378.5 767 959 19.1 35.2 131.4 289.9 695 1750 33.2 134.8 305 802 960 Temperature C 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 C3H8 Mole C3H8 Mole fraction (calculated) fraction (experimenta l) [2] 0.001001 9.45E-04 0.002667 0.0027 0.003475 0.0034 0.007085 0.0073 0.007138 0.0076 0.01381 0.0138 0.02275 0.0225 0.04654 0.0456 0.05641 0.0577 0.000855 8.94E-04 0.001525 0.0015 0.005522 0.0055 0.01231 0.0119 0.02939 0.0283 0.06963 0.0711 0.001126 1.30E-03 0.004374 0.0044 0.009931 0.0098 0.02548 0.0254 0.03014 0.0303 Average of Absolute Deviation (%) Absolute Deviation Percent (%) (ADP) 5.9259 1.2222 2.2059 2.9452 6.0789 0.0724 1.1111 2.0614 2.2357 4.3624 1.6667 0.4 3.4454 3.8516 2.0675 13.3846 0.5909 1.3367 0.315 0.5281 2.7903

% AADP =

100 NOP

NOP

Calculated value Experiment al value 1 = 2.7903 % i

Figure 2 shows the new model' results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG versus contactor total pressure at different TEG circulation flow rates. It also shows the trend of solubility of acid gases in TEG for different TEG circulation rates and contactor pressures. Figure 3 illustrates the new proposed model' results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG versus the contactor temperature at different TEG circulation rates.

Figure 4 shows the new proposed model' results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG versus the TEG circulation rate at different contactor pressures. Figure 5 shows new model' results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG versus TEG circulation rate at different total contactor temperature. It also shows the trend of solubility of acid gas in TEG at different temperatures and TEG circulation rates. Figure 6 shows the new model' results for light alkanes including CH4, C2H6 and C3H8 absorbed in TEG versus total contactor pressure at different TEG circulation rates. It also shows the trend of solubility of light hydrocarbons in TEG for different TEG circulation rates and contactor pressures. Figure 7 illustrates the new proposed model' results for light alkanes gas absorbed in TEG versus total contactor temperature at different TEG circulation rates. Figure 8 shows the new proposed model' results for light hydrocarbons absorbed in TEG versus TEG circulation rate at different total contactor pressures. Figure 9 shows the new model' results for light hydrocarbon absorbed in TEG versus TEG circulation rate at different total contactor temperature. It also shows the trend of solubility of light hydrocarbon gas in TEG at different temperatures and TEG circulation rates.
Liberated Acid Gas( Std. Cubic meter per day)

10

TEG Rate= 30 m3/day TEG Rate= 40 m3/day 2 TEG Rate=50 m3/day TEG Rate=60 m3/day TEG Rate=70 m3/day TEG Rate=80 m3/day TEG Rate=90 m3/day TEG Rate=100 m3/day TEG Rate= 110 m3/day TEG Rate=120 m3/day 1

10

10

1000

2000 3000 4000 C ntacto Pressure, (K o r Pa)

5000

6000

Figure 2 New model results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG vs. contactor pressure at different TEG circulation rates

Liberated Acid Gas ( Std. Cubic meter per day)

10

TEG Rate= 30 m3/day TEG Rate=40 m3/day TEG Rate=50 m3/day TEG Rate=60 m3/day TEG Rate=70 m3/day TEG Rate=80 m3/day TEG Rate=90 m3/day TEG Rate=100 m3/day TEG Rate=110 m3/day TEG Rate=120 m3/day

10

10

20

30 40 50 Contactor T emperature, C

60

70

80

Figure 3- New model results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG vs. contactor temperature at different TEG circulation rates

Liberated Acid Gas (Std. Cubic meter per day)

10

Contactor P=1000 KPa Contactor P= 2000 KPa Contactor P=3000 KPa

10

Contactor P=4000 KPa Contactor P=5000 KPa Contactor=6000 KPa

30

40

50

60 70 80 90 100 TEG Circulation Rate ( cubic meter/day)

110

120

Figure 4 New model results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG vs. TEG circulation rate at different contactor pressure

Liberated Acid Gas (Std. Cubic meter per day)

10

Contactor T= 20 C Contactor T= 30C Contactor T=40C Contactor T=50 C Contactor T=60 C Contactor T=70 C Contactor T=80C

30

40

50

60 70 80 90 100 TEG circulation Rate ( cubic meter/day)

110

120

Figure 5 New model results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG vs. TEG circulation rate at different contactor temperature

Liberated Hydrocarbon Gas (std. Cub. metr per day)

10

10

TEG Rate= 30 m3/day TEG Rate=40 m3/day TEG Rate= 50 m3/day TEG Rate= 60 m3/day TEG Rate=70 m3/day TEG Rate=80 m3/day TEG Rate= 90 m3/day TEG Rate=100 m3/day TEG Rate=110 m3/day TEG Rate=120 m3/day

1000

2000 3000 4000 Contactor Pressure, (KPa)

5000

6000

Figure 6 New model results for light hydrocarbons absorbed in TEG vs. contactor pressure and at different TEG circulation rates

Liberated Hydrocarbon Gas ( Std. Cub. meter per day)

10

TEG Rate=30 m3/day TEG Rate=40 m3/day TEG Rate=50 m3/day TEG Rate=60 m3/day TEG Rate=70 m3/day TEG Rate=80 m3/hr TEG Rate=90 m3/day TEG Rate=100 m3/day TEG Rate=110 m3/day TEG Rate=120 m3/day

10

10

20

30

40 50 Contactor Temperature, C

60

70

80

Figure 7 New model results for light hydrocarbons absorbed in TEG vs. contactor temperature at different TEG circulation rates
Liberated Hydrocarbon Gas(std. cubic meter per day)

10

Contactor P=1000 KPa Contactor P=2000 KPa Contactor P=3000 KPa Contactor P=4000 KPa Contactor P=5000 KPa Contactor P=6000 KPa

10

30

40

50

60 70 80 90 TEG Circulation Rate (cub. m eter/day)

100

110

120

Figure 8 New model results for light hydrocarbons absorbed in TEG vs. TEG circulation rate at different contactor pressure

Liberated Hydrocarbon Gas (Std. Cub. meter per day)

10

Contactor T=20 C Contactor T=30 C Contactor T=40 C Contactor T=50 C Contactor T=60C Contactor T=70C Contactor T=80C

10 30

40

50

60 70 80 90 100 TEG Circulation Rate (cub. meter/day)

110

120

Figure 9 New model results for acid-gas absorbed in TEG vs. TEG circulation rate at different total contactor temperature

As can be seen from the above-mentioned figures, the solubility of acid gases in TEG is more than light alkanes solubility but the mole fraction of light alkanes in contactor's feed gas is more than acid gas, so the solubility of light alkanes is important and has to be accurately considered in design of TEG dehydration units. In general, the proposed model is very accurate in predicting the solubility of acid gases and light alkanes in TEG. However, since dehydrators usually operate at temperatures of less than 60 C, there was no practical need to include temperatures higher than 75 C in graphs of this work. References

Bahadori, A., Calculating Light Alkanes Solubility in TEG, Petroleum Technology Quarterly, 11 5, 165-171 (2006a). Bahadori, A., Solubility of BTEX in TEG, International Gas Engineering & Management, 46, 7, 15-17 (2006b). Bahadori, A., and Zeidani, K., New Equations Estimate Acid Gas Solubility in TEG, Oil & Gas Journal, 104, 8 (Feb. 27, 2006). Grizzle, P.L., Hydrocarbon Emission Estimates and Controls for Natural Gas Glycol Dehydration Units, paper presented at the SPE/EPA Exploration & Production Environmental Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA (March 7-10, 1993). Jou, F.-Y., Otto, F.D., and Mather, A.E., Solubility of Methane in Glycols at Elevated Pressures, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 72, 130-133 (Feb.1994).