SPE-197204-MS

Acid Gas Removal Unit Successful Switch from Silicon to Polyglycol

Antifoam to Eliminate Foaming

Mohammed Al Rumaih, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 November 2019.

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
Natural Gas Liquefaction (NGL) plant Acid Gas Removal (AGR) unit successfully switched from silicon
based to polyglycol based antifoam. Changing the type of antifoam was to eliminate the repetitive foaming
occurrences in the AGR amine absorber, and to avoid the side effects of the excessive silicon deposits in
the circulated amine. The polyglycol based antifoam was found to be more effective and required at lower
concentration.
The AGR unit experienced repetitive amine absorber foaming since the plant commissioning. The
foaming events are due to feed quality challenges in the form of liquid hydrocarbon carryover, and
suspended solids entrainment. The repetitive foaming led to frequently disturbing the plant operation,
reducing the unit throughput and impacting the product quality. To decrease the foaming occurrences the
mode of operation for the antifoam injection was changed from intermittent injection to continues injection.
However, the unit was so sensitive to the antifoam flow interruptions.
The required concentration of the silicon based antifoam was high (110 – 130 PPM compared to 20-25
PPM for the polyglycol based antifoam). This led to the side effects of the excessive silicon deposits in the
system, such as the fouling of heating equipment (heat exchangers, reboilers and air coolers), the frequent
amine filters clogging, and increasing the circulated amine total suspended solids.
The main objective for switching the type of antifoam is to eliminate the foaming events while minimizing
the side effects of the silicon deposits. The polyglycol based antifoam was found more effective for
continuous injection with concentration of 20-25 PPM. Furthermore, in the case of minor foaming in the
amine absorber, increasing the antifoam concentration to 500 PPM was found to be effective in stabilizing
the absorber foaming in less than 5 minutes. In addition, the minor antifoam flow interruptions did not result
in foaming events unlike the silicon antifoam.

Introduction
Shaybah NGL Acid Gas Removal unit (AGR) has two identical trains, the trains are designed to process 2.4
BSCFD of dry clean sour gas, the solution used in the unit is a formulated amine; Methyl Diethyl Amine
enriched with Piperazine (F-MDEA). The design blend is 50% amine, 6% Piperazine and 44% water. The
unit is designed to remove the acid gasses from the natural gas; CO2 ≤50 ppm and H2S ≤4 ppm.
2 SPE-197204-MS

The facility feed gas quality is not meeting the design criteria, where the feed gas is wet dirty sour gas due
to the gas impurities in the form of heavy end liquid hydrocarbon (C6+) and suspended solids; mainly sulfur
(S), iron sulfide (FeS), pyrite (FeS2), and magnetite (Fe3O4). Furthermore, the feed gas contains 45% higher
CO2 and H2S compared to the design. The impurities resulted in repetitive foaming in the amine absorber
and the high acidity resulted in reducing the plant throughput to 1.9 BSCFD, this paper highlights one of
the major contributors in stabilizing the plant, which is the successful switch from silicon based antifoam
to polyglycol based antifoam to eliminate the foaming events and reduce the sides effects of the excessive
silicon deposits in the circulated amine.

Discussion
Process Overview
The feed gas comes to the facility from four (4) different Gas Oil Separation Plants (GOSP), the GOSPs
distance range is 10- 24 kilometers long. The feed pressure is 950 psig, there is a slight variation in feed
composition between the four GOSPs especially when it comes to the acidity and heavy hydrocarbon (C6+)
composition, hence minor modifications in the mode of operation are required when the feed blend changes.
The feed contains approximately 0.35% H2S and 2.2% CO2.
The feed is then joined in a common manifold, which distributes the feed evenly between three slug
catchers. The facility is equipped with two identical AGR trains. The feed is pre-conditioned first by partially
heating up the feed to 130° F via the pre-heater, then the whole feed is directed to the feed filter separators
which are designed to filter the entrained mist.
Following the pre-conditioning the feed gas enters the AGR unit, feed enters the high-pressure absorber
first, where it is treated in contact with the formulated amine (F-MDEA); Methyl Diethyl Amine (50%)
enriched with Piperazine (6%). The contact is in a counter current manner, the sweet gas leaves the overhead
of the amine absorber, it is then further treated in the natural gas liquefaction unit. On the other hand, the
rich amine leaves the bottom of the absorber and it starts the regeneration process.
The regeneration process starts when the amine enters the amine flash drum after reducing its pressure
to 80 psig to flash the gasses and the dissolved hydrocarbon entrained with the amine, then it gets heated
in the amine cross heat exchanger (utilizing the hot lean amine) to 220° F, after that the amine pressure
gets reduced further to 12 psig and it enters the amine stripper. In the stripper the steam generated from the
amine reboilers strips the acid gas, which leaves from the overhead of the amine stripper to the acid gas
compression unit, while the amine leaving from the bottom is circulated back to the amine absorber.
Before routing the amine to the absorber, the amine temperature is reduced to 158° F by the cross
exchanger and amine air cooler, and its pressure is increased to 1100 psig by the booster and circulation
pumps. 15 % amine slip stream is directed to the filtration system. The system consists of 5-micron vertical
cartridge filter followed by carbon bed, and another 5-micron vertical cartridge filter.
SPE-197204-MS 3

Figure 1—Plant Configuration

Amine Absorber Foaming

The plant amine sweetening unit experience repetitive foaming events in the amine absorber since the plant
commissioning in 2016. The root cause behind foaming is the feed quality challenges in the form liquid
hydrocarbon carryover, and suspended solids entrainment. The repetitive foaming events led to frequently
disturbing the plant operation, reducing the unit throughput and impacting the product quality. According to
Pauley, foaming is defined as "a result of a mechanical incorporation of a gas into a liquid, where the liquid
film surrounds a volume of gas creating a bubble.", when analyzing the foaming there are two key aspects:
Solution Foaming Tendency. The solution foaming tendency increases in the present of surface-active
agents such as liquid hydrocarbon carryover to the amine absorber, which results in lowering the liquid
surface tension, leading to more foaming susceptibility, furthermore the system operating conditions such
as the high temperature (more than 145° F) and pressure (more than 950 psig), also leads to lowering the
surface tension.
Solution Foaming Stability. The foaming stability depends on three characteristics:

• Elasticity: Higher elasticity results in higher foam stability, the main function of injecting the
antifoam is to reduce the elasticity and hence resistance to thinning; lowering foaming stability, in
the facility the antifoam injection can reduce elasticity significantly (Dhafeeri, 2017).
• Gelatinous layer: Solutions that are prone to form gelatinous layers tend to have higher foaming
stability. The formation of gelatinous layer is easier in tertiary amines such as MDEA in
compression withy primary amines such as MEA and DGA, hence MDEA is more susceptible to
foam. The layer is formed mainly in the presents of the contamination from the amine degradation
products, solution foaming stability due to gelatinous layer is not experience due to the low
concentration of degradation products.
• Film drainage: Retarding film drainage result in higher foam stability, the presence of corrosion
products such as iron sulfide tends to retard film drainage; increasing foaming stability, solution
foaming stability due to film drainage is experience in the facility, foaming severity is much higher
when amine TSS is high (Pauley, Hashemi and Caothien, 1988).
4 SPE-197204-MS

Foaming Symptoms
Foaming in the AGR units leads to multiple operational disturbances, which range in severity, the following
are some of the symptoms experienced in the facility during one of the major foaming events (before
changing the antifoam type), the symptoms are similar with the other foaming events:

• Sudden increment in the amine absorber dP from 3.5 to 6 psig; this is one of the first spotted
symptoms during foaming accuracies. The root cause behind the dP is the reduction in the void
volume inside the column that leads to higher pressure drop. (Fig 2)
• The reduction of the amine absorber bottom liquid level from 53 to 6 %. This is as a result of the
liquid being sucked to the upper trays, it was accompanied with a drop in rich amine flowrate from
3600 to 1500 USGPM. (Fig 3)
• The carryover of amine to downstream NGL liquefaction unit.

• The shift of the reaction from the lower trays (trays 4-7) to the upper trays (13-20), this resulted
in abnormal temperature profile; a typical temperature profile has the shape of a pregnant woman,
this can also lead to H2S and CO2 breakthrough if proper action of reducing the feed gas is not
taken; resulting in off spec product. (Fig 4)
The foaming was very severe; the 750 MMSCFD of sour feed gas was partially directed to the other
train, and the injection lines, but most of the gas was flared via the HP flare. The time it took for the unit
to recover was 8 hours. (Fig 5)

Figure 2—Amine Absorber dP

SPE-197204-MS 5

Figure 3—Amine Absorber Bottom Liquid Level

Figure 4—Amine Absorber Temperature Profile

6 SPE-197204-MS

Figure 5—Train Processing Capacity

Antifoam System Overview

Each unit is provided with a dedicated antifoam injection skid. The skid is composed of two Antifoam
Tanks each tank with a capacity of 600 gal and each tank is equipped with a single mixer, two positive
displacement dossing Pumps each with a variable dossing rate (0.03 – 1.5 USGPM).
The antifoam injection is hard piped to the suction of amine stripper reflux pumps and the suction of the
amine circulation pumps and can be operated intermittently on as needed basis or continuously to prevent
foaming in the amine stripper and/or absorber. In addition to the antifoam skid, a batch antifoam injection
pot is provided to inject lean undiluted antifoam upstream of the amine circulation pumps. When the plant
was first commissioned the antifoam used was silicon based antifoam, the antifoam injection mode was
intermittent, and the antifoam is mixed with process water to be diluted to the required concentration.

Antifoam System Improvement

The antifoam mode of operation was changed from intermittent to continues injection to reduce solution
elasticity, and its foaming tendency. The antifoam injection rate and concentration were increased from 20
ppm to 130 ppm. The antifoam utilized was silicon based antifoam, which is very effective in reducing the
foaming tendency and stabilizing the unit after foaming incidents. To increase the concentration the antifoam
pump was changed to higher rated pumps, with higher discharge pressure to eliminate flow interruptions
due to pressure fluctuations upstream.
Different silicon based antifoams were tested and used in the unit, however they were all effective only at
high concentration; 115 PPM ≥, the high concentration reduced the foaming tendency significantly however
it caused significant side effect such as equipment fouling across the AGR unit and filters rapid clogging.
Hence alternative polyglycol antifoam was later deployed.

Side Effect of the High Silicon Antifoam Injection

The silicon antifoam viscosity is high (3000 cPs), hence injection the antifoam at high rate with high
concentration led to severe fouling issues across the amine unit.
Heat Exchangers Fouling. The first side effect is fouling the amine circuit heat exchanges, such as the
cross-heat exchanger, the lean amine air coolers and the amine stripper reboilers, this resulted in reducing
their efficiency significantly.
SPE-197204-MS 7

Cross Exchanger
The train is equipped with two identical frame and plate cross-heat exchangers, the exchangers experienced
around 20% efficiency drop because of the increment in the fouling factor. This led to not meeting the target
temperatures of both the lean amine and rich amine sides. The lean amine temperature was leaving the
exchanger 5-10 F higher than target, and the rich amine was leaving 5-10°F lower than target. Furthermore,
fouling also increased the differential pressure (dP) across the exchanger, the natural dP is between 6 and
13 psig depending on the flow of circulated amine, however after increasing the antifoam injection rate the
dP reached 25-28 psig, imposing safety concerns. (Fig 6 & 7)

Figure 6—Silicon Antifoam Deposit in the Cross-Exchanger

Figure 7—The cross Exchanger after Chemical Cleaning

Lean Amine Air Cooler

The train lean amine coolers are equipped with 6 bays, each with two fin fan air coolers. The coolers
experienced 20 %efficiency drop because of the increment in the fouling factor. Fouling resulted in
increasing the amine temperature 4-8°F above target. The higher Temperature led to decreasing the rich
amine H2S and CO2 loading, to compensate the amine circulation rate was increased from 3.8 to 4.2 USGPM/
MMSCFD. Other contributing factor to not meeting the target temperature is the limitation in the cross
exchanger mentioned above.
Amine Stripper Reboiler
The amine Stripper is equipped with two identical reboilers that uses hot oil as heating medium to heat up
the rich amine. The reboilers experienced 10-15% efficiency drop, to compensate for the efficiency drop,
8 SPE-197204-MS

the hot oil circulation rate was increased, this resulted in increasing the reboiler heat duty from 216 to 240
MMBTU/hr., imposing higher utilities cost.
Restoring the Exchangers Efficiency. In order to restore the exchangers efficiency and remove the silicon
deposits the equipment had to be isolated and cleaned, first the cross exchanger was cleaned via chemical
cleaning, which was conducted over few stages starting with the hot water flushing, followed by alkaline
degreasing stage, then acid cleaning stage, finally neutralization stage. The chemical cleaning was found
to be more effective than the conventional hydro jetting utilized in the past to clean the exchanger. The
chemical cleaning help restore the exchanger efficiency and meet the target temperatures of both the lean
amine and rich amine sides. Furthermore, the amine air coolers and the amine stripper reboiler efficiency
was restored by 100% cleaning via hydro jetting.
Amine Filtration System Fouling. The second side effect of high silicon antifoam injection rate is the
fouling of the lean amine filtration system. The amine filtration system consists of 5-micron cartridge filter
followed by carbon bed, and another 5-micron cartridge filter. The antifoam large particles (≥ 5 micron) tend
to clog the filter surface area, and reducing their lifetime efficiency & capacity, in addition to contaminating
the activated carbon bed reducing the hydrocarbon adsorption efficiency. (Fig 9)
The cartridge filter lifetime dropped drastically after increasing the antifoam injection rate. The filters
design lifetime is 2-3 months, however, the lifetime dropped to less than one day. The filters had to be
replaced in a daily basis to maintain acceptable amine quality. Furthermore, the carbon bed design lifetime
is 1 to 2 years, however, the lifetime dropped to less than three months, so the activated carbon is changed
more frequently.
The design amine filtration slipstream is 15% (500 USGPM) of the amine circulation rate, but because
of the limitation caused by the silicon antifoam residue, the slipstream was limited to less than 2%, this
resulted in significantly increasing the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration in the amine to more
than 350 PPM, and the dissolved hydrocarbon concentration to more than 250 PPM. The cleaning frequency
was also increased for the pumps, pumps strainers, instruments & transmitters, and valves, this resulted in
increasing the facility maintenance and operating costs.
The particle size distribution (PSD) analysis were conducted for the amine samples. The results showed
that 72% of the particles are larger than 5 microns, which explains the rapid clogging in less than one day.
The Amine TSS was 250 PPM when the PSD was conducted, however the TSS increases to more than 500
PPM in several occasions. (Table 1 and Fig 8)

Table 1—Summarized Qualitative PSD.

Particle Size Range PS>40 μ 20 μ<x<40 μ 10 μ <x<20 μ 5 μ <x<10 μ 5 μ>PS

Percentage % 50% 7% 9% 6% 28%

Figure 8—PSD analysis using 70, 40, 20, 10, 5 and 2-micron filter paper.
SPE-197204-MS 9

Figure 9—Amine contaminated with white antifoam and TSS.

Deploying the Polyglycol Antifoam

The polyglycol antifoam chemical properties differ from the silicon, especially when it comes to the
viscosity, the polyglycol antifoam is water like (30 cPS viscosity) unlike the highly viscous silicon antifoam
(3000 cPs), which require dilution prior injection. The lower viscosity made the polyglycol more favorable
to avoid equipment fouling. The polyglycol antifoam blend was done especially for the facility amine after
extensive laboratory testing. (Fig 10 and 11)

Figure 10—Silicon Antifoam

Figure 11—Polyglycol Antifoam

The polyglycol antifoam was deployed in the unit after the excessive silicon antifoam injection for
more than two years, it was first piloted in one train for six (6) months then after the successful piloting
both trains switched the type of antifoam. The polyglycol compared to the silicon was more effective at
lower injection rate; the effective concentration range to sustain foam free operation was 25- 30 PPM for
polyglycol compared to 110 – 130 PPM for silicon. The lower injection rate resulted in lower operating
and maintenance costs. Furthermore, in case of foaming in the amine absorber or stripper, increasing the
antifoam concentration to 500 PPM was found more effective than the manual batch injection of silicon,
this practice reduces the safety risks associated with the manual batch injection.
10 SPE-197204-MS

Switching the type of antifoam eliminated the fouling tendency of the highly viscose silicon antifoam.
To fully eliminate the fouling side effect, extensive cleaning to the equipment and the amine solution was
required after switching the antifoam type; mainly due to the amine being saturation with high concentration
of silicon residues. Prior switching the antifoam type, the silicon residue concentration in the amine was
higher than 200 PPM, and even after more than 1 year of switching the antifoam type, silicon residues are
still seen across the amine circuit.

Results
The success criteria for the antifoam deployment is the sustainability of smooth operation of the AGR unit
for the duration of the test. The amine absorber dP is the main processing parameter factor in determining
a successful result. The severity of the foaming tendency is determined by the magnitude of the dP:

• Very low foaming tendency: 2.5 to 3.5 psig, normal operation.

• Medium foaming tendency: 4 to 6 psig, require minor reduction of train throughput to stop foaming.

• High foaming tendency: more than 6 psig, require major reduction of train throughput to stop
foaming.
The foaming tendency during the period of the test was compared with the period when the silicon- based
antifoam was used. In addition, to evaluating the side effect of the high silicon based antifoam injection
such as equipment fouling and filter element clogging.

The Amine Absorber dP

The amine absorber dP was monitored before and after the test period of six months to measure the antifoam
performance. During the test period only 11 foaming events took place in train 1. The severity of all was
medium (dP between 4 and 6 psig). Furthermore, the foaming events were during the optimization phase
of the antifoam injection, when antifoam concentration was less than 20 PPM. Table 2 bellow shows a
summary of the number of foaming events.

Table 2—System Stability

Train Antifoam Type Number of Number of Number of

Exceedances (dP >4) Exceedances (dP >6) Exceedances (dP >8)

Silicon Antifoam 427 71 5

Train 1
Polyglycol Antifoam 11 0 0

Silicon Antifoam 190 37 3

Train 2
Polyglycol Antifoam 0 0 0

The test duration is 6 months, the data for train 1 and 2 were taken at different periods, cause the antifoam
was introduced to each train at different time, however the compassions between the antifoam types have
similar time frame; the same months of different years. Train 1 period is February until August of two
different years. Train 2 period is May until November of different years. (Fig 12 and 13)
SPE-197204-MS 11

Figure 12—Train 1 Amine Absorber dP

Figure 13—Train 2 Amine Absorber dP

Eliminating the Side Effects of the High Silicon Antifoam Injection

Switching the type of antifoam significantly eliminated the side effects of high silicon based antifoam
injection, however to see the results the amine had to be cleaned from the silicon residues first, which took
some time (6 to 8 months). This is indicated by the improvement in the equipment efficiency and the longer
lifetime of the amine filters
Cross Exchanger. The dP across the heat exchanger was trending up when the silicon antifoam was used,
however, after switching the antifoam the dP dropped by 13% in both trains. This eliminated the need to
do the chemical cleaning to the heat exchanger, which is a significant manpower and maintenance cost
avoidances. (Fig 14)
12 SPE-197204-MS

Figure 14—Cross Exchanger dP

Lean Amine Air Coolers. The lean amine air coolers fouling led to exceeding the lean amine target
temperatures by 5 to 10° F. However, after switching the antifoam type the target temperature (151.5° F) was
maintained. This eliminated the need to do hydrojetting, which is a significant manpower and maintenance
cost avoidances. (Fig 15)

Figure 15—Amine Air Coolers Temperature

Amine Stripper Reboilers. The amine stripper reboilers fouling led to increasing the hot oil flow required
to achieve the required duty with clean service. As a result of switching the type of antifoam the hot oil
SPE-197204-MS 13

to lean amine ratio dropped from 35 to 29.6. Like the coolers this eliminated the need to do hydro jetting,
which is a significant manpower and maintenance cost avoidances. (Fig 16)

Figure 16—Stripper Reboilers Hot Oil/ Lean Amine Flow

Lean Amine Filters. The limitation in the filtration system limited the amine quality and increased the
foaming tendency, hence in order to reduce the foaming tendency enhancement to the filtration system was
required (Engel and Sheilan, 2018). After switching the type of antifoam, the lifetime of the amine filters
started increasing gradually from nine (9) hours until it reached more than 72 hours, this also resulted in
increasing the efficiency of the amine filters and subsequently the amine quality. The amine was maintained
will below 70 PPM. It is worth mentioning that a portable filtration unit with higher processing capacity
and varying micron ratings (70, 40, 20, 10, and 5 micron) was used in order to clean the silicon antifoam
residues in the amine. (Fig 17)
14 SPE-197204-MS

Figure 17—Lean Amine Filters dP

The Antifoam Injection Rate & Concentration

The antifoam injection rate was optimized through the test in the range between 0.77 – 0.04 USGPM,
which is equivalent to 250- 12 ppm, during the test reducing the concentration less than 25 PPM resulted
in dP fluctuations. Therefore 25 −30 PPM was found enough to sustain a smooth operation. The Antifoam
injection rate based on different lean amine circulation rates is summarized in table 3.

Table 3—Injection Rate at Different Lean Amine Circulation Rates

Lean Amine Circulation Rate Feed Gas Concentration Injection Rate

(USGPM) (MMSCFD) (PPM) (USGPM)

2500 625-675 25-30 0.06 −0.08

2750 680-750 25-30 0.07 −0.08

3000 760-800 25-30 0.08 −0.09

3250 810-890 25-30 0.09 −0.10

3500 900-950 25-30 0.10 −0.12

Manpower Requirement
The polyglycol antifoam reduce the operator physical contact duration with dangerous chemicals by 20
times. The antifoam tank refilling is required only once every four days compared to once every 5 hours for
the silicon antifoam. Minimizing the tank refilling frequency also reduced all the safety hazard that comes
with this activity such as tripping or being exposed to dangerous chemicals; reducing the human interference
and improving the AGR unit safety.
Furthermore, there is no need to use the manual batch of antifoam when foaming event take place. During
the test, it was found that operating the standby pump remotely with the maximum pump stroke; increasing
the antifoam concentration to 500 PPM is more effective than injecting a manual batch of antifoam.
SPE-197204-MS 15

Plant Throughput
In the year before switching the antifoam type from silicon based to polyglycol based, the plant experienced
repetitive foaming in the amine absorber, this in addition to the other feed quality challenges resulted in
reducing the plant average throughput to less than 1.1 BSCFD. On the other hand, the following year,
after switching, no major foaming events were experienced, and the plant throughput was increased to 1.8
BSCFD, foaming tendency was at its highest in the summer, this led to major feed fluctuations in addition
to the AGR unit instability, but the following summer the plant feed rate was much more stable. (Fig 18)

Figure 18—Plant Processing Capacity During Summer

Summary
This paper highlighted the successful switch from silicon based to polyglycol based antifoam. The main
objective for switching was to eliminate the foaming events while minimizing the side effects of the silicon
deposits. The root cause behind the repetitive foaming in the amine absorber is the liquid hydrocarbon
carryover to the unit with the feed gas which generates the foam, and the suspended solids entrainment
which stabilizes the foam.
Prior to switching the antifoam type the injection of the silicon antifoam was increased to more than
145 PPM, this helped reduce foaming tendency but resulted in a lot of side effects. On the other hand,
the polyglycol based antifoam was found to be more effective for continuous injection with concentration
of 20-25 PPM. In the case of minor foaming in the amine absorber, the practice of increasing antifoam
concentration to 500 PPM was found to be effective in stabilizing the absorber foaming in less than 5
minutes. In addition, the minor antifoam flow interruption did not result in foaming events unlike the silicon
antifoam.
The paper also highlighted the side effects of the high silicon antifoam injection such as heat exchangers
fouling, amine filters clogging and bad amine quality, switching the type of antifoam significantly reduced
the severity of all the mentioned side effects, resulting in both capital and operational cost savings, in
addition to reducing the human interference and improving the AGR unit safety.
The feed quality challenge is common among the gas processing industry, switching the type of antifoam
contributed significantly in eliminating the repetitive foaming in the amine absorber. Nevertheless, a
16 SPE-197204-MS

permanent solution to pre-treat the sour gas and stop the liquid and solids carryover is required to eliminate
the cause of foaming and be able to stop the continues antifoam injection.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks the management of Saudi Aramco for their permission to present this paper, and for
their support during the antifoam piloting and deployment. The author also thanks the plant operation,
maintenance and engineering teams for their support.

Nomenclature
AGR Acid Gas Removal unit
BSCFD Billion Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
DGA Diglycolamine
dP Differential Pressure
F-MDEA Methyl Diethyl Amine enriched with Piperazine
GOSP Gas Oil Separation Plants
MEA Ethanolamine
MMBTU/HR Million British Thermal Unit per Hour
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
NGL Natural Gas Liquid
PPM Parts Per Million
PSD Particle Size Distribution
USGPM US Gallon Per Minutes

References
1. Addington, L. and Ness, C. (2016). An Evaluation of General "Rules of Thumb " in Amine
Sweetening Unit Design and Operation. [online] Available at: https://bit.ly/2SyOdbb.
2. Al Saadi, B., Valenzuela, M., Hill, J. and Baumeister, E. (2013). Improving Overall Performance
and Reducing Energy Usage in Refinery Amine Units with Minimal CAPEX. In: SPE Kuwait Oil
and Gas Show and Conference. Kuwait: SPE.
3. Engel, D. and Sheilan, M. (2018). The ‘seven deadly sins’ of filtration and separation systems.
Gas Processing & LNG. [online] Available at: https://bit.ly/2GYhsmu
4. Dhafeeri, M. (2017). SPECIAL REPORT: Identifying sources key to detailed troubleshooting
of amine foaming. Oil & Gas Journal. [online] Available at: https://www.ogj.com/pipelines-
transportation/article/17228460/special-report-identifying-sources-key-to-detailed-
troubleshooting-of-amine-foaming [Accessed 1 Aug. 2019]. Pauley, C.R., "Face the Facts About
Amine Foaming," Chemical Engineering Progress, July 1991, pp. 33–38.
5. Pauley, R., Hashemi, R. and Caothien, S. (1988). Analysis of Foaming Mechanisms in Amine
Plants. In: American Institute of Chemical Engineer's Summer Meeting. Denver: American
Institute of Chemical Engineers.