SPE-188252-MS

Natural Gas Plant Debottlenecking Thanks to Hybrid Solvent

Eric Cloarec, Renaud Cadours, and Claire Weiss, TOTAL SA

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 2017.

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
For the last decades, continuous global trend towards more stringent safety, commercial and environmental
specifications kept processing sour natural gas containing acid gas such as H2S and/or CO2 a growing
challenge. If mercaptans are present in the sour natural gas, the limited mercaptans absorption capacity of the
well known alkanolamine solvents can be a major problem. The operating companies have to upgrade their
production units to comply with these specification and environmental constraints evolutions. Additional
treatment steps are often required to achieve the total sulfur specification in the sales gas, adding process
complexity and further increasing cost.
An efficient solution to solve the problem would be to replace the usual alkanolamine aqueous solvent
by a hybrid formulation allowing simultaneous removal on mercaptans and acid gases. This approach has
been rarely considered because of the side effects of traditional hybrid solvents: hydrocarbon co-absorption,
negative impact on the downstream sulfur recovery units. It may be necessary also to replace the internals
of the absorber column in the Acid gas Removal Units.
To address this issue, TOTAL is now using a new dedicated hybrid formulation since 2007. This new
solvent has been developed by TOTAL by taking advantage of its intensive know-how and experience in gas
processing. The hybrid solvent is obtained by addition of a physical component into a generic alkanolamine-
water solvent. The final solvent composition is determined to optimize mercaptans removal and minimize
hydrocarbon coabsorption, without affecting acid gas removal capabilities.
Without any plant modification, this hybrid solvent can be implemented in existing unit to remove
mercaptans with the acid gases, with no detrimental impact on downstream SRU. It allows operating cost
reduction of the existing downstream units. Last but not least, the energy consumption of the acid gas
removal units can be lowered by 10- 15%.
This paper presents several applications cases where the benefit of using the hybrid solvent is
demonstrated.

Introduction
More than 40% of the identified gas reserves contain acid gases. Processing these reserves will be the
challenge of operating companies in the next decades, considering the continuous trends towards more
stringent safety, commercial and environmental specifications. Over the years, solvent technologies have
2 SPE-188252-MS

been developed, demonstrated and improved for H2S and/or CO2 removal (Streicher et al., 2004). These
solvent processes are commonly proposed by all technology licensors.
The context of sour gas processing has recently evolved to the appearance of more stringent specifications
for total sulfur compounds, particularly mercaptans and carbonyl sulfide. It became a challenge to produce
these sour gas fields in an economic way. Indeed, the physicochemical properties of mercaptans allow only
very limited reaction with amines under operating conditions. Classical aqueous amine technologies are
generally not sufficient to reach mercaptans or total sulfur specifications. Consequently, additional treatment
steps are required to remove these compounds.
The first option to treat a gas containing CO2, H2S, and mercaptans, consists in implementing a polishing
stage for further mercaptans removal, for example molecular sieves, downstream the amine treating process.
The first drawback of this option is that the gas used for adsorbents regeneration needs to be sweetened,
which requires dedicated unit for this purpose. The second drawback is that the gas sweetening unit for
RSH removal is generally designed with a physical solvent, which has high affinity with hydrocarbon: the
hydrocarbon content in the acid gas from this unit may requires Claus unit adjustment.

Figure 1—Mercaptan removal from gas with molecular sieves

The second option is most adapted when the recovery of NGL is considered. Mercaptans and/or other
sulfur compounds concentrated in the liquid hydrocarbon cuts are removed by the use of caustic soda process
or molecular sieves. As for the first option, the succession of treatment stages implies an increase in the
plant footprint, with unavoidable extended lifecycle costs either due to capital costs or to production costs.
Meanwhile, drawbacks of these schemes are the disposal of the DiSulfide Oil (DSO) with caustic soda
process or the treatment of the gas used for molecular sieves regeneration with possible impact on the Claus
unit.
SPE-188252-MS 3

Figure 2—Mercaptan removal downstream NGL extraction

The last option is the simultaneous removal of mercaptans, carbonyl sulfide and acid gases, in a single
unit, thanks to a mixture of chemical and physical solvents. However, the mercaptan removal efficiency
is correlated to solvent composition and flow rate. The design criteria can be the H2S and CO2 removal or
the mercaptan elimination. OPEX and CAPEX optimisation will drive the selection of the process scheme
configuration: total mercaptan removal within the gas sweetening unit, or partial mercaptan removal with
the hybrid solvent followed by a polishing unit. This selection will consider also that usual hybrid solvents
may have tendency to co-absorb hydrocarbons and BTEX (Mokhatab and Poe, 2012), which have important
consequences for the downstream Claus unit.
These three options have pros and cons for mercaptans removal. A green field project will accommodate
any of them, considering the project constraints: economic and operational constraints, environmental
specifications but also plant layout or chemicals availability on the open market. However, the mercaptan
removal in a brown field project is significantly different, because of the constraints of the existing plant:
plant layout and fixed design for units. That may result in significant plant modification to increase
mercaptan removal to deal with an increase of the sour feed gas mercaptan content and/or to cope with
more stringent product or environmental specifications. For brown field, the use of a hybrid solvent
would be the most attractive solution. But reduced mass transfer efficiency, hydrocarbon co-absorption and
impact on downstream sulphur recovery units were often considered as showstoppers for hybrid solvents
implementation.

A new hybrid solvent for mercaptan removal for brown field projects
Total, taking advantage of its extensive know-how and experience in acid gas removal with amine system
improved its solvent technology by developing a new competitive hybrid solvent allowing the simultaneous
removal of CO2, H2S, and mercaptans, while preserving low hydrocarbons co-absorption (Lallemand et al.,
2008). One of the main drivers for TOTAL to initiate the development of a new hybrid solvent technology
development was the operating bottleneck in the Lacq plant (Cadours et al., 2009).
In 2007, these declining gas fields situated in Southwest France used to treat ~ 5 MMSm3 of sour gas
per day (176 MMSCFD). The sour gas typically contained about 17 mol% H2S and 10 mol% CO2. The
sour gas was sweetened by use of water-DEA solvent. The sweet gas from the amine units was sent to
molecular sieves unit, prior to hydrocarbon dew pointing, which removes mercaptans and dehydrates the
gas to specifications (Figure 3). To face new sales gas specification (6 mg S as RSH/Nm3) and increase of
sulfur component concentration in the sour gas, TOTAL has studied options to achieve the new mercaptan
specification:
4 SPE-188252-MS

– Modification of existing molecular sieves unit or installation of additional mercaptan removal unit.
– Increasing mercaptan elimination capability of existing acid gas removal unit either by adjusting the
amine solvent flow rate of the DEA solvent or by implementing a hybrid solvent.
Installation of new molecular sieves requires substantial investment which is not justified for this
declining gas field. The implementation of a hybrid solvent has been deemed as the best solution.
Hybrid solvents were evaluated during the preFEED engineering steps of the Lacq plant debottlenecking
project. It was concluded that the usual hybrid solvents were not suitable for implementation in the existing
sweetening units. Some of the installed pieces of equipment were not suitable for the physicochemicals
properties of the hybrid solvents: in particular, absorber internals should have been replaced. The
hydrocarbon co-absorption, in particular the aromatic hydrocarbon coabsorption, would have led to high
hydrocarbon content in the acid gas, exceeding the specification of less than 1 % mol of hydrocarbon in the
acid gas specified for the feed to the sulfur recovery unit.

Figure 3—Lacq plant scheme

The example of the Lacq plant was not a single case and similar situations were identified in brown field
projects worldwide, like in Eastern Europe or in Middle East gas fields. The need for an improved hybrid
solvent led TOTAL to consider the research and development of a new hybrid solvent meeting the following
performance criteria: high performance for mercaptan removal, low affinity to hydrocarbons and acid gases
affinity comparable to the one of amine solvents. Besides this, different technical and economic criteria,
allowing the process to be competitive compared to other existing processes, were also considered: safety,
operability, stability, volatility, commercial availability, cost, industrial property situation. Based on these
different criteria, a dedicated physical additive has been selected to upgrade an amine aqueous solvent to
a hybrid solvent.

Benefits of the new hybrid solvent formulation

The addition of a physical solvent into an amine aqueous solvent has a neglectable impact on acid gas
solubility. The chemical reactions with the amine remain the main driver for the H2S and CO2 removal.
For example, considering HySWEET® solvents, the addition of 35 wt % of physical additive into an amine
aqueous solvent has no impact on acid gas solubility. However, the hydrocarbon solubility in a hybrid
SPE-188252-MS 5

solvent and the mass transfer with the hybrid solvent can be significantly different from the usual water-
amine solvent situation depending on the nature of the physical additive.
Regarding mass transfer efficiency, the viscosity and the surface tension are increased by the addition of a
physical component. As a consequence, the mass transfer efficiency of the absorber internal may be lowered.
That could be the limitation for the implementation of a hybrid solvent in an existing unit. To illustrate this
topic, H2S absorption tests performed in a pilot unit are presented here. A synthetic gas composed of N2,
CO2, H2S, mercaptans and COS is fed to the absorber column. Lean solvent from a solvent storage tank is
pumped to the absorber in order to counter-currently contact the gas. The rich solvent is then routed under
level control from the absorber bottom to an amine flash drum, then to the regeneration section through a
lean solvent / rich solvent exchanger. In the regeneration column, the solvent is steam stripped by vapor
generated in a reboiler fed with 4barg steam. The regenerated solvent is recycled to the storage tank after
cooling. Flash gas and acid gas are mixed, cooled down to recover water, compressed and recycled with the
treated gas to the absorber feed. The pilot unit is highly versatile and suitable for gas sweetening studies
with solvent technologies. It had been used to study extensively the Advamines™ and the HySWEET®
solvents (Zhao et al., 2012).
The tests were conducted to compare two hybrid solvents with a generic water-amine solvent. The
operating conditions considered for the study are a typical case requiring selective H2S removal. Solvent A
is a generic MDEA solvent, with 45 wt% of MDEA. Solvent B is the HySWEET®-MDEA solvent prepared
by addition of the new physical additive in the water-MDEA solvent to reach the water-MDEA-additive
composition 30-45-25 wt%. Solvent C is a MDEA based hybrid solvent prepared with sulfolane, described
in the literature as a usual physical component of the widely known Sulfinol process (Mokhatab and Poe,
2012); the physical component content was adjusted at 15 wt %. Feed gas to the pilot unit absorber is a
synthetic gas containing 5.4 mole % of CO2 and 0.4 mole % of H2S. 220 ppmv of mercaptans (90% MeSH
and 10 % EtSH) are added in the feed gas. Gas flow rate is 325 kg/h, solvent flow rate is 500 kg/hr, and the
absorber is equipped with 11 sieves trays. Temperature profile in the absorber is ranging between 60 and
70°C. For the purpose of the comparison, the operating parameters of the regeneration section are adjusted
to control the same acid gas content in lean solvent for each case.
The generic MDEA solvent (Solvent A) removes the H2S down to 4 ppmv in the treated gas and co-
absorbed 51% of the CO2. With the same absorber operating conditions, the addition of physical additive
impacts the acid gas absorption efficiency. For the Solvent B, with 25 wt % of HySWEET® physical additive,
the H2S content in the treated gas is increased up to 30 ppmv. But only 47% of the CO2 is coabsorbed. The
addition of 15 wt % of sulfolane (Solvent C) results in significant H2S slippage. During the pilot tests, H2S
content in the absorber offgas is 50 ppmv with 15wt% of sulfolane and sulfolane content was not studied
further. The CO2 coabsorption is increased compared to the generic water-MDEA solvent. Moreover; with
48 % of the CO2 co-absorbed, it is worth to notice that Solvent C is less selective by comparison with
Solvent B. Last but not least, the addition of 15 wt % of sulfolane in the Solvent C removes 31% only of
the mercaptans, when 38 % of the RSH are removed with Solvent B. These absorption results demonstrate
the constraints and limitations for hybrid solvents implementation in an existing unit considering acid gas
and mercaptans removal.
6 SPE-188252-MS

Table 1—Impact of physical component on tray efficiency

CO2 in treated H2S in treated

RSH removal(%)
gas(mole %) gas(ppmv)

Solvent A
2.65 4 21
Water-MDEA 55-45 wt%

Solvent B
2.89 30 38
HySWEET®-MDEA 30-45-25 wt%

Solvent C
2.81 50 31
Water-MDEA-Sulfolane 45-45-15 wt%

The hydrocarbon solubility is the second constraint when considering the implementation of a hybrid
solvent in an existing unit. The acid gas stream from the gas sweetening unit is generally processed in a
sulfur recovery unit. It is recommended to have less than 1 mole % of hydrocarbon content in the acid gas
stream feeding a typical sulfur recovery unit. The content of hydrocarbon and aromatic components in the
acid gas can be the showstopper of a hybrid solvent implementation. The selection and the concentration
of the physical additive are key elements to control the hydrocarbon coabsorption. Hydrocarbon solubility
measurements were performed with different hybrid solvents prepared by adding 20 wt % of physical
component into a generic water-MDEA solvent. The composition of the hybrid solvents is 35-45-20 wt %
of water-MDEA-physical component. The sulfolane used in the Sulfinol process (Mokhatab and Poe, 2012)
has been tested in this study. It is clearly demonstrated that the replacement of a part of water by a physical
additive leads to higher hydrocarbon solubility (Figure 4). The HySWEET® physical additive will increase
by 30 % the hydrocarbon solubility. The impact of sulfolane is two times more important. Depending of the
application case, the hydrocarbon coabsorption can be a limitation for a hybrid solvent implementation.

Figure 4—Hydrocarbon solubility in hybrid solvents measured in LTP Oldenburg GmbH.

SPE-188252-MS 7

Finally, the HySWEET® hybrid solvent offers an additional benefit. It is demonstrated by 10 years of
operation that this new hybrid solvent needs 8 to 15 % less energy for solvent regeneration compared to a
water-amine solvent (Figure 5, Cloarec et al., 2016). This lower energy requirement makes this new hybrid
solvent an attractive candidate to swap water-amine solvent to hybrid formulation in existing units: beside
the energy and OPEX savings, the lower duty allows operation with the reboilers generally designed for
water-amine solvents.

Figure 5—Comparison of regeneration energy required by classic and hybrid solvent

New hybrid solvent implementation: Equipment adequacy check

Beside the performances for acid gas and mercaptans removal and the impact on hydrocarbon co-absorption,
an adequacy check study is paramount to assess that each piece of equipment of the existing unit are suitable
for the new operating conditions after a hybrid solvent implementation.
First, it is recommended to review the material in place for each piece of equipment and confirm that
material selection philosophy of the existing unit is consistent and suitable with a selected hybrid solvent
formulation. The development of a new hybrid solvent formulation by TOTAL was driven by the fact that the
material selection philosophy recommended for water-amine solvent is suitable for the new hybrid solvent,
hence reducing the need for equipment modification.
Regarding the absorption section, the solvent swap from water-amine to HySWEET® solvent does not
require equipment modification. Indeed, the physicochemical properties and the process performances of the
HySWEET® hybrid solvent generally allow using the existing column and internals without modification.
It is important to assess the impact of the increased flash gas flow rate released in the HP amine flash
drum with hybrid solvent operation. Adequacy check studies conducted for several cases concluded that
the installed equipments are suitable for operation with a HySWEET® hybrid solvent. However, this point
must be carefully reviewed before implementing a hybrid solvent.
The most constraining equipments are heat transfer equipments installed on the solvent circulation loop:
amine/amine heat exchangers and solvent coolers on the first hand, solvent reboilers on the other hand.
The modification of the heat capacity with physical component addition is affecting the capacity of amine/
amine heat exchangers and solvent coolers and detail engineering review is recommended. However, the
8 SPE-188252-MS

area design margin generally considered for amine/amine heat exchangers or solvent coolers would allow
swapping the solvent composition from water-amine solvent to HySWEET® solvent.
The main impact of physical component addition is observed on the regenerator reboilers. The
replacement of a fraction of water by a non volatile component increases generally by 2 to 3 °C the
boiling point of the solvent compared to an usual water-amine solvent. The increase of the solvent boiling
temperature impacts significantly the LMTD of the reboilers when considering 4 barg steam for solvent
regeneration. The installed equipment can be deemed not suitable for service with a hybrid solvent. The
LMTD decrease and the need for additional exchange surface area can be compensated by the lower
duty required by the regeneration of the HySWEET® hybrid solvent, which is 8 to 15 % lower than the
duty required by a water-amine solvent. Further mitigation solution is the optimisation of the operating
conditions of the regeneration section, most of the time the operating pressure, within the constraints of the
downstream process. Alternative mitigation option is adjustment of the operating conditions of the utility
system, when possible. For each case, a detailed engineering review of the design of the as-built reboilers
and an optimisation of the operating conditions are recommended to confirm or infirm the feasibility of
swapping a water-amine solvent to HySWEET® solvent.

Case studies
The Lacq case
The HySWEET®-DEA solvent was implemented in the Lacq plant in 2007. The Lacq plant sweetening units
were typical amine units with a high-pressure absorption section and low-pressure regeneration section. It is
worth to remind that the solvent swap has to cope with the constraints of the existing equipments and solvent.
Due to a continuous operation of several years, normal fouling of the equipment was reported. Similarly,
the water-DEA solvent quality was also affected because of the several years of operation. Hence, impact
of the physical additive on solvent’s physicochemical properties was even more significant, especially due
to the presence of the amine degradation products. The swap from the water-DEA solvent to HySWEET®-
DEA solvent was evaluated: it was anticipated that the physical additive would reduce the heat exchange
in the amine/amine exchanger and in the solvent cooler. As a result, the operating parameters, especially
the solvent flow rate, were adjusted to compensate for the decrease in solubility caused by the temperature
augmentation in the solvent circulation loop. The swap from the water-DEA solvent to the HySWEET®-
DEA solvent did not require any equipment modification, and was simply achieved by adding the physical
component into the existing solvent inventory.
The swap to the hybrid solvent leaded to more than 95 % mercaptan removal, compared to 55 % with
the water-DEA solvent, with a reduction in the reboiler duty compared to the previous operation with DEA
(Figure 6).
SPE-188252-MS 9

Figure 6—HySWEET® solvent performances in the Lacq plant

Due to this improved mercaptan removal in the deacidification unit, the molecular sieves initially
designed for water and mercaptan removal were being operated with a great capacity margin. Hence, a
possibility had arisen to optimize the overall operation of the Lacq plant with the objective of reducing the
overall operating costs. Optimization of the process operating conditions, more especially hybrid solvent
composition and flow rate, was done to find a good compromise between the mercaptan elimination and
the reboiling energy requirement. The optimization allowed 15% saving in reboiling energy. Moreover, the
regeneration gas flow rate of molecular sieves could be decreased by 12 % due to the reduction of the
mercaptan load compared to operation with DEA, which also represents a substantial saving in operating
costs. The physical additive cost recovery was less than 1 year.
It is also important to highlight that during the 10 years of operation with the HySWEET® process,
as expected from development studies, no major operational issues, e.g. foaming, corrosion or solvent
degradation, have emerged. Operators’ feedback is that the foaming tendency of the HySWEET®-
DEA solvent is lower than the usual water-DEA solvent. It is demonstrated that the operation with
HySWEET®solvent is similar to the operation of the unit previously operated with water-amine solvent.
Co-absorption of hydrocarbons and BTX was measured to be respectively 39% and 62% higher, compared
to that of the water-DEA solvent. However, total hydrocarbon content in the acid gas remains below 1 mole
%, with no direct impact on the downstream sulfur recovery units.

Highly sour gas cases

The hybrid solvent is an attractive alternative to water-amine solvent for very sour gas application case. The
sour gas of the Bab field in the UAE with more than 30 mole % of H2S or the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan
with 19 mole % could take benefit from considering a hybrid solvent for the gas sweetening section of
the gas plant. The positive operational feedback of the Lacq plant with similar sour gas composition is an
invitation to compare further the performance of a HySWEET®-DEA solvent with a generic water-DEA
solvent for one of these cases.
10 SPE-188252-MS

For the purpose of the study, a sour gas is considered with a composition similar to the Kashagan gas
composition (Zemploich et al., 2012): 19 mole % H2S, 5 mole % of CO2 and 200 ppmv of mercaptans
distributed between MeSH (75%), EtSH (20%) and PrSH (5%).
In a first step, a gas sweetening unit has been designed considering a water-DEA 60-40 wt % solvent. A
typical treated gas specification was assumed for H2S content, i.e. less than 4 ppmv. Main equipments have
been sized as for a preFEED study: absorption and regeneration columns, columns internal definition, HP
amine flash drum with flash gas absorption column, amine/amine heat exchanger, solvent cooler, reboiler
and regenerator reflux equipments, solvent circulation pumps.
The unit design was then considered as a fixed constraint to evaluate the benefit of a HySWEET®-DEA
solvent compared to the generic water-DEA solvent.
Considering the solvent flow rate calculated by the first step, the HySWEET®-DEA solvent will allow
similar H2S and CO2 removal: the H2S and CO2 content in the treated gas will be lower than respectively
4 ppmv and 50 ppmv. The important solvent flow rate required for H2S removal and the optimisation of
the physical addtive content in the solvent will allow removing 95 % of the mercaptans present in the sour
feed gas. The hydrocarbon co-absorption will be controlled and hydrocarbon content in the acid gas will be
lower than 0.5 mole %, which has no consequence for the operation of a sulfur recovery unit designed to
process an acid gas with 80 mole % of H2S (dry basis).
Amine/amine heat exchangers, solvent coolers and regenerator reboilers are the critical pieces of
equipment. Considering the implementation of the hybrid solvent in an existing unit, detailed adequacy
check review will confirm if these equipments are suitable for service with the operating conditions of the
HySWEET®-DEA.
The cost of solvent additive would be recovered within 3 years by the steam savings resulting from
the swap to the HySWEET® hybrid solvent. When considering the potential savings for the downstream
polishing units for mercaptans removal, the HySWEET solvent benefits will be higher.

H2S selective removal cases

In the Middle East countries, a typical sour gas contents a few mole % of H2S and CO2, and mercaptans
in the range 50 to 200 ppmv. Most of the time, the CO2 specification is not over-exacting, and a selective
removal of H2S is required. The process configuration described in Figure 2 is usually implemented in these
cases (Cadours et al., 2015):

• a gas sweetening unit for selective removal of H2S which is transform into sulfur in a sulfur recovery
units,
• the treated gas is sent to dehydration and dew pointing steps

• the NGL from the dew pointing process contain the mercaptans not extracted by the H2S selective
gas sweetening units and further treatment are implemented for mercaptans removal from NGL
products.
In this configuration, upgrading the solvent of the gas sweetening unit to a hybrid solvent promises
significant benefit for the operating companies.
For the purpose of this study, we have considered the case described by Cadours et al. (2015). The
HySWEET®-MDEA is then considered for selective H2S and mercaptan elimination to achieve the H2S
specification of the treated gas, i.e. 20 ppmv maximum. As for the previous case study, in a first step,
a gas sweetening unit has been designed considering a generic water-MDEA 55-45 wt % solvent. Main
equipments have been sized accordingly. Then the unit design was considered as a fixed constraint to
evaluate the benefit of a HySWEET®-MDEA solvent compared to the generic water-MDEA solvent.
Keeping the same solvent flowrate than the one calculated for water-MDEA solvent, the HySWEET®-
MDEA solvent will achieve the 20 ppmv specification for the treated gas. However the CO2 slippage will
SPE-188252-MS 11

increase and CO2 content in the treated gas will increase up to 2.7 mole%. Even if this CO2 concentration
should not represent an issue, further assessment with the installed equipment in the dew pointing step would
be required. 57 % of the mercaptans will be removed with the HySWEET®-MDEA solvent. Hydrocarbon
and BTX will be coabsorbed also and total hydrocarbon content in the acid gas will be lower than 0.25 mole
%, which has no consequence for the operation of a sulfur recovery unit designed to process an acid gas
with 58 mole % of H2S (dry basis).
Amine/amine heat exchangers, solvent coolers and regenerator reboilers are again the critical pieces of
equipment. Considering the implementation of the hybrid solvent in an existing unit, detailed adequacy
check review will confirm if these equipments are suitable for service with the operating conditions of the
HySWEET®-MDEA.
As a result, 57 % of the mercaptans are removed in the gas sweetening unit loaded with the HySWEET®-
MDEA solvent, instead of 15 % with a generic water-MDEA solvent. The mercaptan content in the feed
of the downstream NGL polishing units will be significantly reduced. In case of molecular sieves, the RSH
content decrease will allow optimization of the adsorption/regeneration cycles. In particular, the extension of
the adsorption time will provide the following benefits: a decrease of the number of cycles/year, a reduction
of the regeneration gas consumption, an extension of the lifetime.
The cost for the physical additive will be recovered within 2 years by the 12 % energy savings offered
by the HySWEET®-MDEA solvent compared to the generic water-MDEA solvent for this application
case. This means that, without beyond the need and/or the benefit of mercaptan removal, a hybrid solvent
HySWEET®-MDEA will offer significant energy savings and OPEX reduction. The HySWEET solvent
benefits will be higher by considering possible downstream units optimization.

Conclusion
In the past, the hybrid solvents were generally considered as an option for the treatment of highly sour gas
and/or when physical solubility of non reactive contaminants such as mercaptans is targeted. With its new
hybrid solvent, TOTAL has developed a solution that can be easily implemented in existing gas sweetening
units.
The HySWEET® solvents are operated in the Lacq plant and no operational issues were reported during
more than 10 years of continuous industrial operations. The steady operation: operation is similar to
the operation of the classical amine mercaptans removal: mercaptan removal efficiency is significantly
improved. Increase in HC co-absorption is controlled, and the concentration of HC including BTEX in acid
gas was acceptable for downstream SRU units.
Achieved in the Lacq plant, the swap from water-amine solvent to HySWEET® solvent does not require
equipment modification.
The payout time for the solvent upgrade to HySWEET® solvent is less than 3 years considering only the
reduction in the reboiling energy: from 8 to 15% compared to more classical amine process. Including the
potential savings after optimization of downstream mercaptan polishing unit, the payout time is less than
1 year in most of the cases.
Various formulations of HySWEET® hybrid solvent are available today, by considering various types of
amine. The HySWEET®-DEA and HySWEET®-PZ solvents will allow a total deacidification of a natural
gas, i.e. the complete elimination of all the acid gases, while the HYSWEET®-MDEA solvent will be
implemented for the selective absorption of the sulphur compounds.
With HYSWEET® hybrid solvents, TOTAL can propose optimal gas sweetening solutions for new green
projects and even more for brown field projects with no or very minor unit modifications.
12 SPE-188252-MS

References
Cadours, R.,ShahV.,Weiss, C.,Lallemand, F.,Roquet, D. 2009. Industrial Operation of HySWEET®, a New Hybrid Solvent
for Improved Mercaptan Removal.Presented at the GPA European Annual Conference,Venice, Italy,September.
Cadours, R., Al Katheeri, S., Al Matroushi, M. S.,Ghazaly, A.,Sayegh, S., 2015. Mercaptans Removal for Sulphur
Emission Mitigation.Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference,Abu Dhabi,
UAE,November 9–12.
Cloarec, E.,Zhao, J.,Weiss, C. 2016. HySWEET®: Improved Solution for Selective Gas Processing.Presented at the GPA
European Annual Conference,Paris, France, April.
Lallemand, F.,Roquet, D.,Weiss, C., 2008. Development and Industrial Validation of a New Hybrid Solvent for Improved
Mercaptan Removal.Presented at the 87th Annual GPA Convention,Grapevine, Texas, USA,March 2–5.
Mokhatab, S.,Poe, W. A., 2012. Handbook of Natural Gas – Transmission and Processing. Second Edition. Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Streicher, C.,Lallemand, F.,Minkkinen, A., and Lecomte, F., 2004. A New Look at Amines: Extending the Gas Industry
"Workhorse" to New Limits.Presented at the 83rd Annual GPA Convention,New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, March
14–17.
Zhao, J. Z.,Cadours, R.,Weiss, C.,Shah, V. 2012. HySWEET® Technology: a Major Progress in Sour Gas
Processing.Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference,Abu Dhabi, UAE,November
11–14.
Zempolich, W.,Negri, A.,Leo, C., Van Ojik, K.,Verdel, A., 2002. The Kashagan Discovery: An Example of the Successful
Use of a Multi-disciplined Approach in Reducing Geologic Risk.Presented at the AAPG Annual Meeting.Houston,
Texas, USA.March 10–12.