Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review

Edith Anwunli Odeigah; Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review

Edith Anwunli Odeigah, Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng

Published in American Journal of Chemical Engineering (Volume 10, Issue 2)

Received: 13 March 2022 Accepted: 31 March 2022 Published: 14 April 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The use of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) as a hydrate inhibitor in wet gas pipelines is increasingly becoming widespread, especially in deep-water long-tie back pipelines where the use of low dosage hydrate inhibitor (LDHI) is not practical. MEG is a commonly used thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI), and it prevents hydrate formation by lowering hydrate formation temperature. One significant advantage of MEG over other THIs is that MEG can be regenerated and reused, which minimises the cost of chemicals as large volumes of THIs are usually required. Over the years, significant research advances have been made in MEG recovery and the MEG Recovery Unit (MRU) design. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the evolution of MEG regeneration systems over the years and introduces recent developments, particularly on energy conservation. The entire MEG recycle and regeneration process is reviewed as well as the various sections and their functions. The different MRU configuration are discussed and factors that affect the performance of the MRU as well as Corrosion and corrosion mitigation in the MRU. This review shows that there are a number of new improvements in the MRU application that are yet to be fully explored as well as some technical challenges that are yet to be fully understood.

Published in	American Journal of Chemical Engineering (Volume 10, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
Page(s)	32-45
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Mono-Ethylene Glycol, MEG Regeneration Unit, Hydrate Inhibitor

References

[1]	Akpabio, M. G., Cold flow in long-distance subsea pipelines. 2013, Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk.
[2]	Hammerschmidt, E., Formation of gas hydrates in natural gas transmission lines. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 1934. 26 (8): p. 851-855.
[3]	Saberi, A., et al., Experimental measurement and thermodynamic modeling of equilibrium condition for natural gas hydrate in MEG aqueous solution. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2018. 459: p. 110-118.
[4]	Liu, J., et al., Molecular insights into the kinetic hydrate inhibition performance of Poly (N-vinyl lactam) polymers. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2020. 83: p. 103504.
[5]	Clark, L. W., L. M. Frostman, and J. Anderson. Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors (LDHI): Advances in Flow Assurance Technology for Offshore Gas Production Systems. IPTC.
[6]	Lederhos, J., et al., Effective kinetic inhibitors for natural gas hydrates. Chemical Engineering Science, 1996. 51 (8): p. 1221-1229.
[7]	Brustad, S., K.-P. Løken, and J. G. Waalmann. Hydrate Prevention using MEG instead of MeOH: Impact of experience from major Norwegian developments on technology selection for injection and recovery of MEG. in Offshore technology conference. 2005. Offshore Technology Conference.
[8]	Dapena, J. A., et al. Gas hydrate management strategies using anti-agglomerants: Continuous & transient large-scale flowloop studies. in Offshore Technology Conference. 2017. OnePetro.
[9]	Tian, J., et al. Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors (LDHI): Advances and Developments in Flow Assurance Technology for Offshore Oil and Gas Productions. Offshore Technology Conference.
[10]	Xu, Y., M. Yang, and X. Yang, Chitosan as green kinetic inhibitors for gas hydrate formation. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry, 2010. 19 (4): p. 431-435.
[11]	Akhfash, M., et al., Gas Hydrate Thermodynamic Inhibition with MDEA for Reduced MEG Circulation. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2017. 62 (9): p. 2578-2583.
[12]	Fan, C., et al., Barite Nucleation and Inhibition at 0 to 200°C With and Without Thermodynamic Hydrate Inhibitors. SPE Journal, 2010. 16 (02): p. 440-450.
[13]	Flaten, E. M., M. Seiersten, and J.-P. Andreassen, Polymorphism and morphology of calcium carbonate precipitated in mixed solvents of ethylene glycol and water. Journal of Crystal Growth, 2009. 311 (13): p. 3533-3538.
[14]	Latta, T. M., et al. Design Considerations for Mitigating the Impact of Contaminants in Rich MEG on Monoethylene Glycol Recovery Unit MRU Performance. Offshore Technology Conference.
[15]	MEG Regeneration Technical Meeting. 2009, SPE International, Victoria and Tasmania Section Schlumberger Limited: Port Campbell.
[16]	Babu, D., M. Hosseinzadeh, and H. Akbary, Study links iron sulfide to MEG column burping.
[17]	Babu, D. R., et al., Carbonates precipitation in MEG loops – A comparative study of South Pars and Bass Strait gas fields. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2015. 27: p. 955-966.
[18]	Manfield, P., et al., Wax-On, Wax-Off: Understanding and Mitigating Wax Deposition in a Deepwater Subsea Gas/Condensate Flowline, in Offshore Technology Conference. 2007, Offshore Technology Conference: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. p. 10.
[19]	Schümann, H., et al., Rheology Study: Comparison of a Real Condensate-MEG System and a Model Fluid System, in BHR 19th International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology. 2019, BHR Group: Cannes, France. p. 15.
[20]	Anthony, J., et al., Lessons Learned from Residual Corrosion Inhibitor Measurements by LC-MS in a Mature North Sea Gas/Condensate/MEG Production System, in SPE International Oilfield Corrosion Conference and Exhibition. 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. p. 16.
[21]	Haque, M. E., Ethylene glycol regeneration plan: a systematic approach to troubleshoot the common problems. Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2012. 27: p. 21-26.
[22]	Soames, A., et al., Effect of wettability on particle settlement behavior within Mono-Ethylene Glycol regeneration pre-treatment systems. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019. 179: p. 831-840.
[23]	Ramchandran, S., Minimize trapped components in distillation columns: here is how one plant remedied a distillation difficulty by analyzing, then counteracting, the chemistry that had led to the problem. Chemical Engineering, 2006. 113 (3): p. 65-70.
[24]	Latta, T. M., et al., Design Considerations to Minimize Hydrocarbon Entrainment in the Aqueous Phase, in Offshore Technology Conference. 2018, Offshore Technology Conference: Houston, Texas, USA. p. 86.
[25]	Karami, H., E. Pereyra, and C. Sarica, Effects of monoethylene glycol (MEG) on three-phase flow characteristics in near-horizontal pipes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2017. 149: p. 834-843.
[26]	Boschee, P., Gas Hydrate Control Using Monoethylene Glycol in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil and Gas Facilities, 2012. 1 (03): p. 14-18.
[27]	Soames, A., et al., Operation of a MEG pilot regeneration system for organic acid and alkalinity removal during MDEA to FFCI switchover. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2018. 169: p. 1-14.
[28]	Seiersten, M. and S. S. Kundu, Scale Management in Monoethylene Glycol MEG Systems - A Review, in SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference and Exhibition. 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. p. 10.
[29]	Guan, H., G. Cole, and P. J. Clark. Inhibitor Selection for Iron Scale Control in MEG Regeneration Process. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[30]	Latta, T. M., M. E. Seiersten, and S. A. Bufton. Flow assurance impacts on lean/rich MEG circuit chemistry and MEG regenerator/reclaimer design. in Offshore technology conference. 2013. Offshore Technology Conference.
[31]	Zaboon, S., et al., Recovery of mono-ethylene glycol by distillation and the impact of dissolved salts evaluated through simulation of field data. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2017. 44: p. 214-232.
[32]	Son, H., et al., Simulation and modeling of MEG (Monoethylene Glycol) regeneration for the estimation of energy and MEG losses. Energy, 2018. 157: p. 10-18.
[33]	Braga Pires, A. P., et al., Application of a new pilot-scale distillation system for monoethylene glycol recovery using an energy saving falling film distillation column. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2020. 153: p. 263-275.
[34]	Ajdar, M. A., et al., Air gap membrane distillation of MEG solution using PDMS coated polysulfone hollow fiber membrane. Polymer Testing, 2019. 76: p. 1-9.
[35]	Lawson, K. W. and D. R. Lloyd, Membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 1997. 124 (1): p. 1-25.
[36]	Rincón, C., J. M. Ortiz de Zárate, and J. I. Mengual, Separation of water and glycols by direct contact membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 1999. 158 (1): p. 155-165.
[37]	Mohammadi, T. and M. Akbarabadi, Separation of ethylene glycol solution by vacuum membrane distillation (VMD). Desalination, 2005. 181 (1): p. 35-41.
[38]	Drioli, E., A. Ali, and F. Macedonio, Membrane distillation: Recent developments and perspectives. Desalination, 2015. 356: p. 56-84.
[39]	Alonso, G., E. del Valle, and J. R. Ramirez, 3 - Desalination plants, in Desalination in Nuclear Power Plants, G. Alonso, E. del Valle, and J. R. Ramirez, Editors. 2020, Woodhead Publishing. p. 31-42.
[40]	AlHarooni, K., et al., Inhibition effects of thermally degraded MEG on hydrate formation for gas systems. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2015. 135: p. 608-617.
[41]	Phelps, D. W. and L. E. C. Fernandez, Divalent Cation Removal From Rich Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) Feed Streams By Ion Exchange. 2017, Google Patents.
[42]	Phelps, D. W. and L. E. C. Fernandez, Hydrocarbon and divalent cation removal from rich mono ethylene glycol (MEG) feed streams by regenerable filters. 2015, Google Patents.
[43]	He, S., et al., Low-voltage and ion-free-reverse-migration electrically regenerated mixed-bed ion exchange for MEG desalination. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2020. 15 (6): p. e2559.
[44]	Renpu, W., Chapter 1 - Basis of Well Completion Engineering, in Advanced Well Completion Engineering (Third Edition), W. Renpu, Editor. 2011, Gulf Professional Publishing. p. 1-74.
[45]	Olsen, S., A. Dugstad, and O. Lunde. pH-stabilization in the Troll gas-condensate pipelines. in CORROSION 99. 1999. OnePetro.
[46]	BRUSTAD, S., K. LOKEN, and J. K. A. WAALMANN, Engineering and Technology Hydrate Prevention using MEG instead of MeOH: Impact of experience from major Norwegian developments on technology selection for injection and recovery of MEG. S. OTC, 2005. 17355.
[47]	Nazzer, C. A. and J. Keogh. Advances in Glycol Reclamation Technology. in Offshore Technology Conference. 2006. Houston Texas: Offshore Technology Conference.
[48]	Hayhoe, P., Glycol purification-a novel approach to an old problem. New Zealand Engineering, 1993. 48 (5): p. 12.
[49]	Hou, R., et al., Operational study of a monoethylene glycol (MEG) desalination pilot plant. Part I: Development of a new method for the estimation of MEG content in the presence of NaCl solid particles. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2019. 146: p. 344-351.
[50]	PUREMEG Monoethylene glycol reclamation and regeneration unit, S. Limited, Editor. 2020, Schlumberger Limited.
[51]	Condilis, A., J. E. Vale, and T.-E. Stranna, Closed loop glycol systems—experience from BP’s Shah Deniz gas export project and advances in technology. The APPEA Journal, 2008. 48 (1): p. 249-260.
[52]	Teixeira, A. M., et al., Exergy Analysis of Monoethylene glycol recovery processes for hydrate inhibition in offshore natural gas fields. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2016. 35: p. 798-813.
[53]	Halvorsen, A. M. K., et al. The Relationship Between Internal Corrosion Control Method, Scale Control and Meg Handling of a Multiphase Carbon Steel Pipeline Carrying Wet Gas with CO₂ And Acetic Acid. in CORROSION 2007. 2007.
[54]	Cha, M., et al., Thermodynamic and kinetic hydrate inhibition performance of aqueous ethylene glycol solutions for natural gas. Chemical Engineering Science, 2013. 99: p. 184-190.
[55]	Haghighi, H., et al., Experimental and thermodynamic modelling of systems containing water and ethylene glycol: Application to flow assurance and gas processing. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2009. 276 (1): p. 24-30.
[56]	Kontogeorgis, G. M., et al., Ten Years with the CPA (Cubic-Plus-Association) Equation of State. Part 1. Pure Compounds and Self-Associating Systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006. 45 (14): p. 4855-4868.
[57]	Lee, J.-W. and S.-P. Kang, Phase Equilibria of Natural Gas Hydrates in the Presence of Methanol, Ethylene Glycol, and NaCl Aqueous Solutions. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2011. 50 (14): p. 8750-8755.
[58]	Bahadori, A., A simple mathematical predictive tool for estimation of hydrate inhibitor loss in hydrocarbon liquid base.
[59]	Masoudi, R., et al., Measurement and prediction of gas hydrate and hydrated salt equilibria in aqueous ethylene glycol and electrolyte solutions. Chemical Engineering Science, 2005. 60 (15): p. 4213-4224.
[60]	Tomson, M. B., A. T. Kan, and G. Fu. Inhibition Of Barite Scale In The Presence of Hydrate Inhibitors. in SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale. 2004.
[61]	Psarrou, M. N., et al., Carbon Dioxide Solubility and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) Degradation at MEG Reclaiming/Regeneration Conditions. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2011. 56 (12): p. 4720-4724.
[62]	Rossiter Jr, W. J., P. W. Brown, and M. Godette, The determination of acidic degradation products in aqueous ethylene glycol and propylene glycol solutions using ion chromatography. Solar Energy Materials, 1983. 9 (3): p. 267-279.
[63]	Monteiro, M. F., et al., Thermal Degradation of Monoethylene Glycol in Aqueous Saline Solution: Evaluation by Thermogravimetric and Physicochemical Analyses. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2019. 58 (27): p. 12159-12165.
[64]	Ikeh, L., G. Enyi, and G. Nasr. Inhibition Performance of Mild Steel Corrosion in the Presence of Co 2, HAc and MEG. in SPE International Oilfield Corrosion Conference and Exhibition. 2016. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[65]	Liu, D., Z. Chen, and X. Guo, The effect of acetic acid and acetate on CO₂ corrosion of carbon steel. Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials, 2008. 55 (3): p. 130-134.
[66]	AlHarooni, K., et al., Influence of Regenerated Monoethylene Glycol on Natural Gas Hydrate Formation. Energy & Fuels, 2017. 31 (11): p. 12914-12931.
[67]	Soames, A., A. Barifcani, and R. Gubner, Removal of Organic Acids during Monoethylene Glycol Distillation and Reclamation To Minimize Long-Term Accumulation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2019. 58 (16): p. 6730-6739.
[68]	Rogne, T., et al., The influence of some environmental factors on the corrosion of stainless steel weldments exposed to simulated well flow. Conference: Corrosion '89, New Orleans, LA (USA), 17-21 Apr 1989; Other Information: Technical Paper 89470. 1989: Houston, TX (USA); National Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers. Medium: X; Size: Pages: (12 p).
[69]	Joosten, M. W., et al. Materials Considerations for MEG (Mono Ethylene Glycol) Reclamation Systems. in CORROSION 2007.
[70]	Kim, J., et al. Mono Ethylene Glycol Regeneration System Upgrade. in SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition. 2019.
[71]	Bikkina, C., et al. Development of MEG regeneration unit compatible corrosion inhibitor for wet gas systems. in SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference and exhibition. 2012. OnePetro.
[72]	Kim, H., et al., Economic evaluation of MEG injection and regeneration process for oil FPSO. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2018. 164: p. 417-426.
[73]	Hagerup, O. and S. Olsen. Corrosion Control by pH Stabilizer, Materials and Corrosion Monitoring in 160 km Multiphase Offshore Pipeline. in CORROSION 2003
[74]	Moussa, A. M., S. Habib, and A. Shinaishin. Scarab/Saffron Development Project Case study: Material Selection Criteria for the Monoethylene Glycol Recovery Package. 2004. Egypt.
[75]	Malik, A. U., et al., The influence of pH and chloride concentration on the corrosion behaviour of AISI 316L steel in aqueous solutions. Corrosion Science, 1992. 33 (11): p. 1809-1827.
[76]	Olsson, J., Stainless steels for desalination plants. Desalination, 2005. 183 (1): p. 217-225.
[77]	Soames, A., et al., Corrosion of Carbon Steel during High Temperature Regeneration of Monoethylene Glycol in the Presence of Methyldiethanolamine. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2019. 58 (32): p. 14814-14822.
[78]	Gonzalez, J. J., M. E. Alfonso, and G. Pellegrino, Corrosion of Carbon Steels in Monoethylene Glycol, in CORROSION 2000. 2000, NACE International: Orlando, Florida. p. 13.
[79]	Pojtanabuntoeng, T., M. Salasi, and R. Gubner, The Influence of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) on CO₂ Corrosion of Carbon Steel at Elevated Temperatures (80 to 120°C), in CORROSION 2014. 2014, NACE International: San Antonio, Texas, USA. p. 13.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah, Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. (2022). Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. American Journal of Chemical Engineering, 10(2), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah; Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. Am. J. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10(2), 32-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah, Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. Am J Chem Eng. 2022;10(2):32-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13,
  author = {Edith Anwunli Odeigah and Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng},
  title = {Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review},
  journal = {American Journal of Chemical Engineering},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {32-45},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajche.20221002.13},
  abstract = {The use of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) as a hydrate inhibitor in wet gas pipelines is increasingly becoming widespread, especially in deep-water long-tie back pipelines where the use of low dosage hydrate inhibitor (LDHI) is not practical. MEG is a commonly used thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI), and it prevents hydrate formation by lowering hydrate formation temperature. One significant advantage of MEG over other THIs is that MEG can be regenerated and reused, which minimises the cost of chemicals as large volumes of THIs are usually required. Over the years, significant research advances have been made in MEG recovery and the MEG Recovery Unit (MRU) design. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the evolution of MEG regeneration systems over the years and introduces recent developments, particularly on energy conservation. The entire MEG recycle and regeneration process is reviewed as well as the various sections and their functions. The different MRU configuration are discussed and factors that affect the performance of the MRU as well as Corrosion and corrosion mitigation in the MRU. This review shows that there are a number of new improvements in the MRU application that are yet to be fully explored as well as some technical challenges that are yet to be fully understood.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review
AU  - Edith Anwunli Odeigah
AU  - Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng
Y1  - 2022/04/14
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
T2  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
SP  - 32
EP  - 45
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8613
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
AB  - The use of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) as a hydrate inhibitor in wet gas pipelines is increasingly becoming widespread, especially in deep-water long-tie back pipelines where the use of low dosage hydrate inhibitor (LDHI) is not practical. MEG is a commonly used thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI), and it prevents hydrate formation by lowering hydrate formation temperature. One significant advantage of MEG over other THIs is that MEG can be regenerated and reused, which minimises the cost of chemicals as large volumes of THIs are usually required. Over the years, significant research advances have been made in MEG recovery and the MEG Recovery Unit (MRU) design. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the evolution of MEG regeneration systems over the years and introduces recent developments, particularly on energy conservation. The entire MEG recycle and regeneration process is reviewed as well as the various sections and their functions. The different MRU configuration are discussed and factors that affect the performance of the MRU as well as Corrosion and corrosion mitigation in the MRU. This review shows that there are a number of new improvements in the MRU application that are yet to be fully explored as well as some technical challenges that are yet to be fully understood.
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Edith Anwunli Odeigah

Western Australian School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng

Western Australian School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah, Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. (2022). Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. American Journal of Chemical Engineering, 10(2), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah; Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. Am. J. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10(2), 32-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Edith Anwunli Odeigah, Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng. Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review. Am J Chem Eng. 2022;10(2):32-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13,
  author = {Edith Anwunli Odeigah and Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng},
  title = {Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review},
  journal = {American Journal of Chemical Engineering},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {32-45},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajche.20221002.13},
  abstract = {The use of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) as a hydrate inhibitor in wet gas pipelines is increasingly becoming widespread, especially in deep-water long-tie back pipelines where the use of low dosage hydrate inhibitor (LDHI) is not practical. MEG is a commonly used thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI), and it prevents hydrate formation by lowering hydrate formation temperature. One significant advantage of MEG over other THIs is that MEG can be regenerated and reused, which minimises the cost of chemicals as large volumes of THIs are usually required. Over the years, significant research advances have been made in MEG recovery and the MEG Recovery Unit (MRU) design. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the evolution of MEG regeneration systems over the years and introduces recent developments, particularly on energy conservation. The entire MEG recycle and regeneration process is reviewed as well as the various sections and their functions. The different MRU configuration are discussed and factors that affect the performance of the MRU as well as Corrosion and corrosion mitigation in the MRU. This review shows that there are a number of new improvements in the MRU application that are yet to be fully explored as well as some technical challenges that are yet to be fully understood.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Regeneration and Reclamation of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Used as a Hydrate Inhibitor: A Review
AU  - Edith Anwunli Odeigah
AU  - Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng
Y1  - 2022/04/14
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
T2  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Chemical Engineering
SP  - 32
EP  - 45
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8613
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20221002.13
AB  - The use of Mono-Ethylene Glycol (MEG) as a hydrate inhibitor in wet gas pipelines is increasingly becoming widespread, especially in deep-water long-tie back pipelines where the use of low dosage hydrate inhibitor (LDHI) is not practical. MEG is a commonly used thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI), and it prevents hydrate formation by lowering hydrate formation temperature. One significant advantage of MEG over other THIs is that MEG can be regenerated and reused, which minimises the cost of chemicals as large volumes of THIs are usually required. Over the years, significant research advances have been made in MEG recovery and the MEG Recovery Unit (MRU) design. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the evolution of MEG regeneration systems over the years and introduces recent developments, particularly on energy conservation. The entire MEG recycle and regeneration process is reviewed as well as the various sections and their functions. The different MRU configuration are discussed and factors that affect the performance of the MRU as well as Corrosion and corrosion mitigation in the MRU. This review shows that there are a number of new improvements in the MRU application that are yet to be fully explored as well as some technical challenges that are yet to be fully understood.
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download