SPE 93387

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Feasibility Study
S. Kokal, SPE, and A. Al-Utaibi, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 1215 March 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Sour natural gas contains H2S and CO2, which have to be
removed to meet specifications for sales gas. The removal
process is done at the gas plants. The resulting acid gas
streams (primarily H2S and CO2) are processed in sulfur
recovery units or sulfur plants, which convert the H2S to
elemental sulfur instead of burning it and flaring the produced
SO2. The sulfur recovery units (SRU) are not a major revenue
generator (due to the low sulfur price) and are primarily
installed for environmental reasons.
The total world sulfur production is anticipated to increase
in the future, causing a downward pressure on sulfur prices.
With low sulfur prices and large stockpiles of sulfur, it is
worthwhile to consider alternate processes for handling sulfur.
One such alternate is the injection of acid gas into a subsurface
reservoir, much like injecting the produced water during crude
oil production.
Acid gas injection has several advantages and
disadvantages. Advantages include low operating expenses,
reduced sulfur emissions into the atmosphere, CO2
sequestration and the ability to handle wide range of acid gas
compositions. Disadvantages include finding a geologically
isolated disposal or storage reservoir, increased safety risks,
subsurface migration and lost revenues from sulfur. Any one
of these could be the controlling factor, and a detailed
economic and environmental analysis is needed to decide
whether an acid gas injection (AGI) scheme should be
installed in lieu of sulfur recovery plant. The existing AGI
schemes are primarily installed in Canada (a few in the USA)
due to low sulfur prices, increased environmental regulations
making it mandatory for operators to control sulfur emissions
into the atmosphere, and availability of suitable depleted oil
and gas reservoirs.
This paper presents a roadmap for acid gas injection
schemes including the technical and economic factors that
need to be addressed in deciding whether AGI is feasible. An

example feasibility study for a Saudi Arabian field is included

as a case study.
Introduction
Raw natural gas, both associated and non-associated, generally
contains carbon dioxide and sometimes hydrogen sulfide.
These two components have to be removed from natural gas
by a sweetening process involving a regenerative solvent.
This removal process is necessary for the natural gas to meet
pipeline and sales gas specifications. The separated gas
stream, often referred as acid gases, usually contains H2S,
CO2, water and minor amounts of hydrocarbon components.
The amounts of these components in the acid gas stream,
particularly H2S and CO2, vary significantly depending on
their relative amounts in the raw gas stream and the selected
gas treating process.
The acid gases are usually processed in a sulfur recovery
unit, typically a modified Claus Plant, to convert H2S to
elemental sulfur. The efficiency of the Claus Plant, and hence
the conversion of H2S to sulfur, depends on the composition of
acid gases. Conversion efficiency decreases as the
concentration of CO2 increases relative to H2S in the feed
stream. At very high CO2/H2S ratios in the acid gases, a Super
Claus unit or a tail gas unit must be employed to boost the
conversion efficiencies of the Claus Plant and meet sulfur
dioxide (SO2) environmental emission regulations. The
addition of a Super Claus or a tail gas unit (TGU) increases
the overall cost of sulfur production. The selection of an
appropriate sulfur recovery technology also depends on the
sulfur production capacity and environmental regulations.
An alternate to recovering the sulfur is to compress the
acid gases and inject them into a suitable underground
reservoir. This is akin to produced water disposal, with the
added advantage of reducing the emission of greenhouse and
acid gases. Stricter environmental regulations also favor the
reinjection option, as the tail gas is burnt/flared and emitted to
the atmosphere in the form of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO2.
During the past decade, a number of operators, primarily in
Canada, have developed technologies for disposing acid gases
by injecting them into subsurface reservoirs. In many cases,
the injection option has been economically, operationally and
environmentally superior to a sulfur recovery unit. This has
been primarily due to the availability of shallower reservoirs
for injection, and low acid gas flow rates that make a SRU a
more expensive option.
This paper presents a roadmap for AGI schemes and
addresses the state-of-the-art of acid gas injection technology.
The first section deals with the phase behavior aspects of acid

www.petroman.ir

Kokal and Al-Utaibi

gases and includes their solubility in water and brine. Next it

covers the facility and process engineering aspects that include
compression and dehydration of acid gases, pipeline transport
and injection wells. A detailed review is then made on
reservoir aspects including the types of reservoirs for
injection, effect of acid gases on reservoir rocks, fluid
migration and injection pressures (related to fracturing).
Safety considerations during acid gas injection are reviewed,
followed by a feasibility study for a Saudi Arabian field.
Several excellent papers on various aspects of AGI are
provided in References 1-15, and the review in this paper is
based primarily on them.
Phase Behavior Aspects
The acid gas mixture from the amine stripping plants contains
H2S, CO2 and small amounts of hydrocarbons (generally
methane from ~1 to 3 mol %). The acid gas is at low pressure
(10-30 psi) and saturated with water vapor. This mixture has
to be compressed to an appropriate pressure for underground
disposal. The outlet pressure from the compressor is
dependent on a number of factors including the bottomhole
injection pressure (> disposal reservoir pressure). During this
process, the water saturated acid gases go through various
phases that need to be understood for proper facility design.
The condensed water creates a potential for corrosion and
hydrate formation.
The phase behavior of acid gases is best reviewed by
considering their phase diagrams1-5. A phase diagram for pure
H2S, CO2 and a few mixtures of H2S and CO2 is shown in Fig.
1. The results were obtained using a PVT simulator (PVTsim
by Calsep). Pure H2S and CO2 exhibit normal vapor/liquid
behavior with pressure and temperature as shown in Fig. 1.
The solid single curves for these components are the
vaporization or vapor pressure curves. They represent the
boundaries between liquid and vapor. At any point on the
curves, the pure components exist both as vapor and liquid.
These curves terminate at the upper end at the critical point of
the components. The critical point is the maximum pressure
and temperature at which the vapor and liquid can co-exist.
Above the critical points, the components exist as a dense
phase.
The area between the two pure component vapor pressure
curves in Fig. 1 represents the conditions for mixtures of H2S
and CO2. Three phase envelopes are plotted for 25, 50 and
75% H2S (the remainder is CO2) mixtures. These are referred
to as two-phase envelopes. Inside each two-phase region, the
acid gases co-exist as vapor and liquid of varying
compositions. The mixture is completely liquid to the left of
the phase envelope and completely vapor or gas to the right of
the envelope. The curve at the top that joins critical points of
the pure components is the critical loci of various mixtures of
CO2 and H2S. At pressures and temperatures above the critical
loci curve, the mixture is a dense phase. These phase
envelopes are important for the design of gas injection
facilities.
Addition of methane to the acid gas mixture can
significantly affect the phase diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Three phase envelopes are plotted for (a) 50% CO2, 50% H2S,
(b) 49.5% CO2, 49.5% H2S, 1% methane, and (c) 47.5% CO2,
47.5% H2S, 5% methane. As can be seen, at low methane

SPE-93387

content, the two-phase envelopes are smaller. For a given

pressure, these mixtures require lower temperatures to liquefy
completely. For a given temperature, the pressure needed to
completely liquefy the mixtures is higher. From a facilities
perspective this implies that the hydrocarbons in the acid gas
mixture should be minimized.
Presence of Water and Hydrate Formation. When water is
present (the usual case) in the acid gases, the phase behavior is
a little bit more complicated. Hydrates are formed when
mixtures of acid gases are saturated with water and subjected
to high pressures and low temperatures. Hydrate curves for
H2S and CO2 are shown in Fig. 3. At temperatures to the left
of these curves, solid hydrates will form when liquid water is
present.
Hydrates form below 80oF for H2S and below 50oF for
CO2 at elevated pressures. Fig. 3 shows the hydrate forming
conditions for mixtures of acid gases containing different
amounts of H2S and CO2. The data show that the hydrate
forming temperatures of acid gas increases with increasing
H2S content. It should be noted that hydrates will form only in
the presence of water.
Water Content of Acid Gases. In the presence of water, acid
gas may be saturated with respect to water. Fig. 4 (from
Reference 3) shows the water of saturation for H2S, CO2 and
mixtures of H2S and CO2. The water of saturation for acid
gases is a function of temperature. The ability for H2S and
CO2 to hold water is reduced as the pressure increases up to a
certain value, and then increases substantially with an increase
in pressure. These higher pressures generally correspond to the
acid gases becoming liquid or dense. Acid gas mixtures
therefore have a higher capacity to hold water in their liquid or
dense phase as compared to their vapor phase. A small amount
of hydrocarbons (methane, ethane) reduces the water content
of CO2 and H2S at elevated pressures.
Fig. 4 shows that the water content of pure H2S can
increase significantly from the gas to the liquid state. Pure
CO2 does not liquefy at this temperature, and the water content
of CO2 follows a single curve. Mixtures of CO2 and H2S will
liquefy if subjected to sufficient pressures. The pressure at
which they liquefy depends on the composition of the mixture,
and the temperature. As the pressure is increased, eventually
all of the mixture will be liquefied. The 3-phase regions for
these mixtures are shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 4.
The water content data for acid gas mixtures show
minimum water content in some pressure ranges, depending
on the relative amounts of H2S and CO2 in the mixture, and
the temperature. A smart idea1 is to separate the water in this
pressure range and a few degrees above the hydrate
temperature. This will ensure that no free water will be present
when the acid gases are compressed to higher pressures,
liquefied and cooled. This will eliminate free water and hence
the possibility of hydrate formation. This aspect of acid gas
and water mixtures should be exploited for optimizing the
design and operating conditions for acid gas compression and
injection systems.
Density and Viscosity of Acid Gases. The density and
viscosity of acid gases are needed for predicting injection
pressures and pressure drops in the lines. During the design of
an AGI scheme, it is important to understand the phase
behavior of acid gas (+water). If multiple phases are present,

www.petroman.ir

SPE-93387

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Case Study

the calculation of overall density becomes even more

complicated.
Injection compressor discharge pressure determines the
compressor size needed. To obtain discharge pressure, an
estimate of the pressure at the wellhead is required. To
estimate the wellhead pressure, the bottomhole injection
pressure and the pressure drop (or gain) in the wellbore is
needed. In all these calculations, the density (and viscosity) of
the fluid is required.
The traditional method of calculating density is through
the use of a cubic equation of state, such as the Peng-Robinson
or the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equations. These are basically
correlations of the molar volume (and hence the density) as
functions of the temperature, pressure, and through the mixing
rules, the composition. However, these equations are not
highly accurate for calculating densities, especially for liquids.
Their predictive capabilities can be somewhat improved using
the volume-translated equation of state. The use of
commercial simulators, which use equations of state and other
methods, can sometimes provide misleading results especially
in the transition region between vapor and liquid. The design
engineer must be aware of this and plot density envelopes
(over pressure and temperature) to understand the regions
where densities may be incorrect. An example of density
calculations (using PVTsim) for one of the AGI case studies is
shown in Fig. 5. Another option is to use the program
Aqualibrium by John Carroll6.
Viscosity of acid gas mixtures (against pressure and
temperature) is also needed for these calculations. Viscosity is
generally obtained from correlations. A complicating factor is
that typical viscosity correlations use the density as an
intrinsic parameter. Therefore, accurate estimation of density
is important for accurate prediction of viscosity. In pipeline
pressure drop calculations, the effect of viscosity is
significantly lower than the effect of density. Therefore, more
focus should be made on the accuracy of density prediction
than viscosity values.
Facilities
There are three basic components to an acid gas injection
scheme1-3, 7-10. These are:
Compression and dehydration
Pipeline transport
Injection well
Acid Gas Compression and Dehydration. The acid gas from
the top of the amine regeneration column is at a low pressure
(generally between 10-30 psig). The acid gas is also saturated
with water at these conditions. In order to inject the acid gas it
has to be compressed. The compression takes place in a multistage compressor with interstage cooling and liquid knockout
drums.
The compressor discharge pressure depends on a number
of factors, including the pressure of the reservoir, reservoir
permeability, and the rate of injection. Generally, acid gas
mixtures are in a liquid state at discharge pressures exceeding
~1,000 psia (see Fig. 2) as long as the methane content is less
than 5%. The required compression scheme is dictated by two
concerns. The first is the wellhead pressure at the injection
well. The second is an attempt to take advantage of the water

holding capacity of the acid gas. Once the inlet pressure and
outlet pressures for the compressors are fixed, compressors
can be designed and the number of stages set.
An Example. Table 1 and Fig. 6 show the operating
conditions for a 6-stage compressor for the case study
described later in the paper. The composition of this stream
was 55.0% CO2, 34% H2S, 10.6% H2O and 0.4% low
molecular weight hydrocarbons. The hydrate temperature is
also shown in the figure. The wellhead pressure is much lower
than the bottomhole pressure. This is due to the fact that acid
gas at the wellhead is a dense fluid with a density of ~0.8 g/cc,
which aids in the injection of the mixture into the reservoir.
The material of construction for the compressor should be
selected carefully. The first stage suction piping and vessels
can be constructed from carbon steel meeting NACE standards
for sour gas handling1. In general, all other downstream
piping, vessels, coolers and equipment should be constructed
from stainless steel. However, there is scope for optimizing
the use of stainless steel by proper understanding of acid gas
phase behavior and the ability to predict the presence of liquid
water. At each stage conditions, it is important to determine
the state of the acid gas mixture and whether liquid water is
present.
As stated earlier, the water holding capacity of acid gas
mixtures passes through a minimum (Fig. 4). By cooling the
gas stream to just above the hydrate forming temperature, the
water can be condensed after the 2nd or 3rd stage of
compression and removed. Further compression of the acid
gas mixture will ensure that the remaining water is in the
dissolved state. Under these conditions, the water carrying
capacity of the acid gas will be higher than the actual water
content (this is true as long as the methane content of the acid
gas is less than 5%). By removing the water in the
intercoolers, there will be no need to dehydrate the acid gas,
and the downstream facilities could be constructed out of
carbon steel meeting NACE specifications.
The Pipeline. After compression and cooling, the acid gas
mixture (generally in a dense phase) is transported in a
pipeline to an injection well. For safety considerations, the
length of the pipeline should be kept as short as possible. The
design of the pipeline follows standard procedures for pipeline
design. However, because many phases can form in the
pipeline (described earlier) depending on conditions, it should
be able to handle multiphase fluids.
The material for the acid gas disposal line depends on
whether the acid gas has been dehydrated. For dehydrated gas,
sour service carbon steel materials meeting NACE
specifications may be used. Corrosion inhibition injection into
the pipeline should also be considered. For non dehydrated
acid gas, the line may be constructed using carbon steel if
water is removed in the interstage coolers. If water is not
removed, the gold standard is 316 stainless steel. One key
consideration is line length. Stainless steel is more expensive,
and, if the line cost exceeds the dehydration unit costs, it may
be more economical to dehydrate the acid gas stream prior to
compression.
The line diameter is generally sized for liquid (or dense
phase) handling because this is, in general, the state of the
fluids after the final stage of compression. The pipeline should
be installed with the necessary safety devices, such as high

www.petroman.ir

Kokal and Al-Utaibi

and low pressure shutdown protection and leak monitoring

system. Though not necessary, the entire pipeline can be
placed inside another pipe as a safety precaution, especially in
populated areas. At the injection well location, the well site
facilities will include appropriate meters and sensors to
provide information related to temperature, pressure, flow
rates and density. The wellhead should be equipped with a
check valve as well as an emergency shut down valve.
The Injection Well. The compressed acid gas has to be
disposed off into a suitable underground reservoir through an
injection well. For safety and cost reasons, the injection well
should be located as close to the plant/compression facilities
as possible. Ideally the subsurface disposal zone should be a
suitable large aquifer, or a depleted reservoir, have good
permeability, and, not very deep. Finding a suitable disposal
reservoir is critical for the entire reinjection scheme. The
injection pressure should generally be in the range of 1,000 to
1,300 psia, which is high enough for the acid gas to be in a
liquid/dense phase, and aids with the injection into the zone.
The drilling and completion costs are largely dependent on
the depth of the injection formation. The tubing string can be
stainless steel (the gold standard) or carbon steel meeting
NACE specifications2, 11-12. The injected acid gas will
generally be undersaturated with respect to water and need not
be internally coated.
The general location of the injection well is often
influenced by its proximity to the plant processing sour gas.
The location of the well should also be based on a detailed
assessment of regional geology, which should include2, 13:
The location, depth and extent of injection zones. The
disposal zone should be large enough to hold all of the
injected gas over the project life.
Thickness and extent of caprock and any stratigraphic
traps or fractures in it that may affect the ability of the
caprock to contain the acid gases.
The location and extent of other bottom or lateral
bounding formations to determine if other wells in the
area are likely to be impacted by the disposal schemes.
Natural fluid flow rate and flow direction through
simulation studies to show the potential migration of
injected acid gas.
Folding or faulting in the area and potential seismic risk.
Pure Acid Gas Injection Versus Sour Water Injection
There are two options for acid gas injection: direct injection,
or dissolving the acid gas in water at the surface and then
disposing the sour water. Both schemes have advantages and
disadvantages. In both cases, an understanding of the
solubility of the acid gas in water (brine) is essential in order
to quantify the speed of migration of the injected gas.
Most of the schemes currently in operation are direct acid
gas injection schemes. However, schemes in which acid gas is
dissolved in water (sour water injection, SWI) are also gaining
in popularity14-16. The latter technique results in better
containment of the sour gas as it is dissolved in the injected
aqueous phase and, excepting diffusive forces that act very
slowly in porous media, the sour water moves only as the
injected water spreads into the reservoir. This also lessens the
safety concerns with respect to rate and volume of release in

SPE-93387

the event of a blowout of a sour disposal well. Compression

costs are replaced with the lower pumping costs, as the sour
water is pumped down the well instead of a compressed dense
fluid. Disadvantages include concerns about corrosion in the
surface and injection equipment, hydrate in the contacting
equipment, cost and safety of the surface contacting
equipment, and phase behavior related concerns. Another
disadvantage is that the water contacting method preferentially
tends to absorb H2S over CO2. A large volume of water is also
required to dissolve an acid gas stream of any appreciable
volume. The technique can be advantageous in places where a
large volume of produced water is available and is already
being disposed. In such cases, dissolved sour water injection
may offer significant capital and operating cost advantages
over direct acid gas injection and should be evaluated.
Pure acid gas injection also has pros and cons. One of the
major concerns is the ability of the formation to isolate the
injected gas and prevent it from migrating into other
producing zones. The bottomhole injection pressures should
not exceed fracture pressures (in general, should be less than
80% of the fracture pressures). The presence of natural
fractures or high permeability streaks within the formation
may improve injectivity, particularly in low permeability
formations, but may create problems with rapid aerial spread
of the injected gas. Another important concern is the solubility
of acid gas in formation water and the possibility of forming
pockets of free acid gas in the aquifer. These pockets of acid
gas could easily migrate in the reservoir because of the high
mobility of gas, and may end up in indeterminate locations.
Second, in the event of a new well intersecting these gas
pockets, an unexpected or abnormal situation could be created
with the potential for a critical sour well drilling environment.
These concerns are valid, but to date no adverse effects have
been recorded in the literature as the amount of acid gas
volumes are generally very small compared to the reservoir
and aquifer volumes. Another factor in favor of direct acid gas
injection is the fact that acid gas at bottomhole injection
conditions is generally in liquid or dense phase and their
volumes are significantly reduced further. However, when
large volumes of acid gases are to be injected, it may be
worthwhile to conduct a simulation study to determine the
spread of acid gas in the near wellbore area.
Acid gas or sour water injection may have some potential
side benefits. In carbonate reservoirs, in the absence of
adverse precipitation and fines migration effects, long term
acid gas injection may actually improve injectivity in some
disposal wells due to low pH induced dissolution effects.
Reservoir Aspects
Finding a suitable reservoir for disposal of acid gas is perhaps
the most critical aspect of the whole scheme. There are three
basic types of formations that should be considered for acid
gas disposal: (a) aquifer (b) depleted oil or gas reservoir, and
(c) producing reservoir.
Aquifer. Subsurface aquifers overlie and underlie many oil
and gas producing reservoirs. Using these water zones for acid
gas disposal has the advantage that wells can be drilled right
on, or near, the plant site, thus minimizing the safety and cost
issues related to pipeline length. The deeper aquifers are
typically large, and the water generally has a high dissolved

www.petroman.ir

SPE-93387

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Case Study

salt concentration, making them unsuitable for domestic,

agricultural or industrial use. However, one major
disadvantage of deeper aquifers is the higher wellhead
injection pressure requirements, making compression costs
higher. The shallower and fresher aquifers are difficult to
inject into due to the economic value of water, especially in
the Middle East. Appropriate permission from hydrological
and governmental regulatory authorities has to be acquired
before any plans are made for acid gas disposal into
subsurface aquifers.
Depleted Reservoirs. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are good
candidates for acid gas disposal because they have a proven
ability to contain hydrocarbons up to the original discovery
pressure. However, the availability of a depleted hydrocarbon
reservoir near the plant site, and especially in the Middle East,
is very limited. In Canada, where the chances of shallow,
depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs are higher, a number of
injection schemes have flourished.
Producing Reservoirs. If no suitable depleted reservoir or a
large aquifer is readily available near the sour gas facilities,
then disposal into a producing horizon may be feasible
because the amount of gas returned to the zone is usually a
very small fraction of the total gas in place. However, there
could be serious effects if acid gas migrates to producing
wells. Such a disposal scheme would make economic sense
only if the producing reservoir was already sour and existing
facilities were capable of handling high concentrations of H2S
and CO2. Acid gas injection into a producing oil reservoir may
also be considered as an enhanced oil recovery scheme or as a
pressure maintenance scheme. These have to be evaluated
carefully at the time of the feasibility study.
In some cases, the sour gas plant may not be close to the
oil or gas reservoir to be used for disposal. This will require a
long pipeline from the plant to disposal well, which is likely to
be a public and safety concern.
To properly assess the merit of acid gas injection into any
type of reservoir highlighted above, the following aspects
should be carefully considered2, 13:
Reservoir geology including stratification, homogeneity,
caprock information, and permeability of the formations.
A complete geochemical analysis of formation water,
including a measure of total dissolved solids and native
H2S/CO2 concentrations.
Reservoir temperature and pressure in the disposal zone.
A complete and accurate drilling history of offsetting
wells within a few kilometers of the disposal well to
identify any wells or zones that could be impacted by the
injection fluid. This should include producing, shut-in or
abandoned wells that may be contacted by the injection
fluids
The possible effect of the disposal fluids on existing or
potential hydrocarbon production from the proposed
disposal zone.
Reservoir Containment. The containment of the disposal
acid gas in the reservoir is important. A knowledge of the
regional geology is needed in order to determine the bounding
formation and caprock around the target zone and whether
there is likely to be any migration through faults or fractures
of the injected fluids into other formations, groundwater, or to

the surface. The containment of acid gases in depleted and

producing hydrocarbon reservoirs is less of a concern because
these reservoirs have kept the hydrocarbons trapped for
millions of years and have proven their ability to contain
fluids. On the other hand, the ability of the water aquifers to
hold injected acid gas needs to be determined. A safe,
maximum operating injection pressure (the lower of caprock
threshold displacement pressure or the fracture pressure of the
rock matrix) is needed for acid gas disposal schemes.
The likelihood of over pressuring a depleted or producing
hydrocarbon reservoir is generally low, but could occur in a
water aquifer because pressures above the original reservoir
pressure must be used in order to inject the acid gas. However,
the water zones are generally very large compared to the
amount of injected gas, and pressure quickly dissipates before
affecting the caprock. Where there is a chance that the
proposed acid gas disposal scheme may over pressure the
caprock, detailed calculations/simulations on pressure
gradients near the injection well may be needed. An accurate
estimate of the fracture pressure is also needed and should not
be exceeded during disposal.
Another important consideration is the total volume of acid
gas to be injected over the lifespan of the AGI scheme and to
ascertain that this amount of acid gas will not cause an over
pressure situation. Reservoir simulation studies may be needed
to determine the pressure buildup, dissipation and volume
capacity requirements during acid gas injection. These
simulation studies are useful and provide many answers
related to reservoir engineering aspects of acid gas injection.
Effect of Acid Gas on Rock Matrix. Target zones for acid
gas injection are usually either carbonates or sandstones.
When acid gas enters the reservoir, there may be some acid
gas-rock interactions. These interactions may be either
beneficial or detrimental to the injection scheme and need to
be evaluated before injection starts. CO2 in the acid gas will
dissolve some of the carbonate rock matrix and will lead to a
stimulating effect on injection. This is supported by lower than
anticipated wellhead pressures in many of the operating
schemes. In sandstones, CO2 tends to dissolve the binding
carbonate surrounding the sand grains, which results in an
initial porosity increase in the near wellbore area. Acid gas
core flow studies on carbonate and sandstone cores support
this observation. However, not enough data is available to
conclude whether the migration of fines or carbonate mineral
precipitation would reduce permeability in the long run.
Safety Considerations
Safety is a major concern with an acid gas injection scheme.
Proper safety equipment must be installed both above and
below ground to ensure that any failure does not result in
injury to personnel or damage to equipment and the
environment. Other safety measures should include2, 17:
At the facility design stage, a hazard and operability study
of the entire facility should be conducted. This should
include all personnel and each item should be reviewed
with respect to safety and operability.
If possible, an independent company should be hired to
review and monitor the safety hazards during the time of
construction and possibly later during operation.

www.petroman.ir

Kokal and Al-Utaibi

A comprehensive emergency response plan should be

implemented with a mock exercise to ensure the staff is
knowledgeable on the procedures in case of emergency.
Proper H2S level monitoring in all facilities and wellsite.
Open house information session with facilities personnel
and area residents should be held periodically to inform
them about the operations and address any concerns on
health, safety and environment issues.
Detailed calculations should be performed to determine
the rupture exposure radius (RER) during accidental
failure of acid gas pipeline and release of toxic H2S.
Involve appropriate governmental and regulatory
authorities directly related to safety, health and
environmental issues.

Case Studies
Acid gas injection schemes were pioneered in Canada and
have become popular there due to the following reasons:
Tough environmental regulation requirements for sulfur
emission limits. Currently, the limit is 1 metric ton per
day of sulfur and is likely to become tougher in the future.
This limit necessitates plant operators to recover small
amounts of sulfur using tail gas plants to make acid gas
injection economically viable.
Availability of depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and water
aquifers for easy disposal of acid gas.
Generally low rates of acid gas streams that make the
initial cost of sulfur recovery units prohibitive compared
to acid gas injection schemes.
The cost of produced sulfur is practically zero. In fact
most of the produced sulfur is stockpiled with associated
costs.
Poor quality of acid gas (high CO2, low H2S) negatively
impacts the sulfur conversion efficiency in a Claus plant.
In these cases, an acid gas injection scheme becomes an
attractive option.
Over 50 acid gas disposal schemes are in operation worldwide
with the majority of them in Alberta, Canada. These schemes
can be summarized (see the list references for more details) as
follows:
The injection schemes include:
o Depleted oil and gas reservoirs.
o Water aquifers.
o Mixed with water at surface and disposed off in water
wells.
Acid gas composition varies tremendously with H2S
concentrations less than 1% to over 70%. This is a distinct
advantage for acid gas injection schemes and any
composition, including varying compositions, can be
injected into the subsurface.
The acid gas injection rates are generally less than 5
MMscfd, with only a couple of schemes injecting at
higher rates than 5 MMscfd. At the low flow rates of acid
gas injection, it has an advantage over a sulfur recovery
plant.
The pipeline length (from the plant to the injection well)
varies from less than 50 m to over 4,000 m.

SPE-93387

The number of formations to which the acid gas is

injected is equally divided between carbonates and
sandstones.
The number of schemes utilizing dehydration of some sort
is ~60%.
The majority of the facilities utilize carbon steel
(especially if acid gas is dehydrated)
The average wellhead pressure is generally less than 1000
psia and exceeding 1,500 only in one or two cases. The
higher injection pressure results in higher compression
and cooling costs for acid gas injection (a major cost
factor).
The brine quality (total dissolved solids) does not have an
impact on the injection.
Since 1985, when the first acid gas injection facility was
commissioned, there have not been any significant safety
concerns that have had any adverse environmental and health
impacts. To date, the operators, regulatory authorities, and the
public have been satisfied with the acid gas injection concept
and the success of existing schemes. Only very minor
incidences of problems have been reported in the literature.
These include1, 17:
Sulfur deposition in the injection well perforations. These
were cleared with injection of dimethyl disulfide and
other sulfur solvents into the well.
Leakage of acid gas into the crankcase of compressors
causing damage to bushings, connector rods and bearings.
Tubing leaks in a disposal well that were caused by a
cracked outer housing body of the subsurface safety
valve.
Corrosion problems in the tubing string due to the leakage
of wet acid gas. The corrosion was due to sulfide stress
cracking.
A Roadmap for AGI
A number of factors need to be weighed and debated to decide
whether it is appropriate to inject acid gas. As usual in these
scenarios of alternate, out-of-the-box concepts, the advantages
have to be weighed in with the disadvantages. The pros and
cons of AGI are discussed below.
Benefits of AGI. The benefits include:
Significantly reduced sulfur emissions to the atmosphere.
CO2 sequestration by injecting it underground.
Ability to handle a wide range of H2S and CO2
compositions.
Elimination of sulfur transportation and handling costs.
High on-line reliability.
Drawbacks and Limitations of AGI. The disadvantages
include:
Finding a geologically isolated disposal reservoir and
wells with sufficient injectivities. This is very critical.
Extra safeguards and procedures are needed to handle,
process, transport and inject the acid gas.
Lost revenues from not selling sulfur (dependent on sulfur
prices).
High costs of compression.
Energy liberated by the combustion of H2S in a SRU is
not realized.

www.petroman.ir

SPE-93387

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Case Study

It must be emphasized that sulfur recovery is primarily

made for environmental reasons. With stringent environmental
regulations, the cost of producing sulfur further increases. The
economics of sulfur is very dependent on the price of sulfur
and whether the sulfur can be sold or has to be stockpiled.
Different scenarios must be evaluated based on future sulfur
prices and sulfur handling.
To evaluate and implement an AGI strategy, we
recommend conducting the following studies sequentially.
Initial Assessment Study. Each AGI study should be made
on a case-by-case basis. The feasibility study should address
the numerous economic, environmental, operational, safety
and technical issues associated with acid gas injection.
However, sometimes it may be worthwhile that an initial
assessment be conducted before proceeding with a detailed
feasibility study. The information that is needed for the initial
assessment includes:
Approximate acid gas injection flow rate.
Composition of the acid gas.
Approximate area where acid gas is to be injected (urban
vs. remote).
Is a suitable reservoir for injection available? If yes, the
location of the injection wells, the depth of injection
(disposal reservoir) and wellhead injection pressure.
The most important factor for an AGI scheme is the
availability of a suitable reservoir where the acid gas can be
injected and isolated. Appropriate departments, including
hydrology, geology, reservoir engineering, facilities and
governmental agencies, should be involved in the initial
assessment study team.
Detailed Feasibility Study. Once an initial assessment study
has been completed, a detailed feasibility study can be
undertaken to establish a go or no-go scenario. The
information needed for a full study includes those items
highlighted under the initial assessment study above, plus:
A forecast of daily, yearly and total acid gas disposal
volumes (and disposal water where applicable).
Reservoir rock properties: threshold displacement
pressure, permeability and porosity, rock mineralogy,
native fluid compositions, acid gas interactions with
reservoir rock and native fluids.
Fluid physical properties of the acid gas over a
representative range of pressures and temperatures,
including: density, phase behavior, and solubility of acid
gas in reservoir water and disposal water.
Direct injection or sour water injection? This could be
conditional on the availability of water injection wells in
the concerned area.
Information on regional geology and location of any
groundwater aquifers that could pose a contamination
risk.
Environmental regulations in terms of sulfur emissions
and SRU efficiencies.
Prevailing and forecasted sulfur prices.
Once the information outlined above has been gathered,
the study will involve technical, environmental, safety,
operational and economic components. It is assumed that a
suitable reservoir is available for injecting the acid gas before
proceeding with the detailed feasibility study.

Detailed Technical Study. The technical study will focus on

three components:
Compression and dehydration.
Pipeline transport.
Injection well.
These components were described in detail earlier and are
covered extensively in the referenced literature1-18. The
important technical details include the wellhead injection
pressure (and hence the maximum compressor discharge
pressure), the number of compression stages, the types of
coolers (generally aerial), and whether the acid gas will be
injected direct or mixed with water and subsequently injected.
Another important factor that will affect economics of the
project is the strategy adopted for the number of compression
stages and compressor backup. For example, should you
consider two 50% trains, three 50% trains, a 100% train or two
100% trains? This is important because compression and
associated cooling are the major cost component of AGI
scheme. Most operating AGI schemes do not carry spare
compression capacity, and the on-stream factor for
compressors is generally greater than 98-99% every year. The
material of construction for various components of AGI is also
important. Carbon steel meeting NACE specifications for sour
gas is adequate where dehydration facilities are installed.
However, the gold standard is stainless steel. The option of
dehydration is debatable and clever engineering strategies can
avoid dehydration completely. The pipeline that carries the
acid gas from the facility to the injection well should be as
short as possible to reduce safety risks. The line itself and all
the facilities should be equipped with leak detection systems.
Other safety devices and associated systems should be
considered for full emergency control of processing and
wellsite facilities.
The AGI facilities can be adequately designed using
commercial simulators, such as Hysys or PRO II, at least for a
feasibility study. Fluid properties and phase behavior of acid
gases can be estimated using PVT simulators, or better,
through experimental investigations. The important
predictions needed are the density of acid gas (at pressure and
temperature), solubility of acid gas in water and associated
phase diagrams.
Reservoir engineering aspects of acid gas injection are also
important. The reservoir available for disposal should be close
to the facilities processing acid gas stream. Injection into
producing intervals should be avoided because this may incur
recycling and increase sour gas concentrations over time. The
best reservoirs are shallow and depleted reservoirs or shallow
saltwater aquifers. However, environmental assessment should
be made before selecting these reservoirs. Reservoir
simulation studies may be necessary to address the issues of
acid gas injectivity, migration, containment and injection well
requirements.
Environmental and Safety Factors. With regard to AGI
and SRUs, several local and national environmental regulatory
issues must also be addressed. The first and foremost is the
sulfur emissions using both processes. According to
Meteorological Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA)
standards, 95% of the H2S must be converted to sulfur.
Another MEPA requirement is the ambient air quality

www.petroman.ir

Kokal and Al-Utaibi

standard, which stipulates the average SO2 concentration of

less than 730 mg/m3 or 0.28 ppm in the air. These regulations
must be considered when comparing AGI with SRU.
Other environmental issues to consider include wellbore
integrity and disposal formation suitability (for containment),
groundwater protection and public safety. Suitable safety
devices must be installed above ground and in the wellbore to
ensure that any failure does not result in environmental or
personnel damage. Further issues related to environmental and
safety were described earlier.
Operational Factors. The operation of AGI should also be
considered during the feasibility studies. In this regard, the
reliability of AGI systems in Canada and other parts of the
world has been exceptionally good. The average on-line time
of the compressors is ~99%. In general, the AGI systems have
paralleled or exceeded the on-line performance of gas
processing facilities. The volume of acid gas that is generally
flared during outages of the AGI equipment has been very
small. Therefore, system reliability is a very important design
factor for AGI schemes. A 100% process backup system may
not be required, based on the past operating histories of AGI
schemes. High levels of reliability can be achieved by
developing proactive preventative maintenance programs,
utilizing high reliability compressor motors, stocking critical
spare parts and having 24-hour access to maintenance
specialists. Other operational issues include the startup of acid
gas injection facilities, safety issues, emergency response
plans, turndown operations, among others.
Economic Analysis. Once the technical, environmental and
operational issues have been ironed out, the next phase is an
economic analysis to provide a rough order of magnitude cost
estimate comparing AGI with SRU. This should include a
comprehensive, inclusive treatment of capital costs and
operating expenses for the two processes. If different options
are being considered, an economic analysis should be
performed for each of those options. The economic model
should take into consideration the revenue generated from
sulfur. Sensitivity studies must be made to consider alternate
options such as:
Low/high sulfur prices.
Direct injection versus sour water injection.
Compression train strategy (with backup).
Dehydration of the acid gas and associated metallurgy
issues.
Other case-sensitive options specific for the facility.
An example AGI feasibility study for a Saudi Arabian field
is described next.
Saudi Arabian Feasibility Study
A feasibility study was conducted to determine the most
economic option to handle an acid gas stream at a not-yetdeveloped field. The study involved the comparative
evaluation of AGI versus SRU for the future facilities. The
drop in sulfur prices and uncertainties in the sulfur market
were the two main reasons for the feasibility study.
The composition of the acid gas stream was 55.0% CO2,
34% H2S, 10.6% H2O and 0.4% low molecular weight
hydrocarbons. The flow rate of the acid gas stream was
approximately 30 MMscfd. If sulfur recovery units were to be

SPE-93387

installed having an average recovery efficiency of 95%, 370

MTD of elemental sulfur would be recovered.
Reservoir Selection. The first issue was to find a suitable
reservoir for acid gas injection near the field. One of the
requirements was to drill the disposal wells as close as
possible to the acid gas separation facilities. Injection into
shallow aquifers was eliminated after consultation with
hydrologists. These aquifers are in the recharge area and
contain very low salinity water suitable for future industrial
and human use. Injection into the producing oil reservoir was
also rejected as impractical from an operational point of view.
Sour gas concentration would increase over time and exceed
surface equipment specifications. The team finally selected the
deep aquifer lying underneath the producing oil column. To
prevent contamination and spread of acid gas into the oil
column, it was agreed to inject it ~2 km away from the oilwater contact in the reservoir. Preliminary reservoir simulation
studies suggested that several wells would be required to inject
the acid gas into the deep aquifer due to the low permeability
in the area selected for injection.
Phase Behavior Aspects. The phase envelope for the acid gas
is presented in Fig. 6 along with the compressor inter-stage
pressures and temperatures. The acid gas stream mostly
contains H2S and CO2 and has a very narrow phase envelope.
The high pressure (HP) acid gas is a supercritical fluid at
~2,500 psia, and it remains a dense phase fluid throughout its
injection into the reservoir.
Densities of the acid gas are plotted in Fig. 5 as a function
of pressure at five different temperatures. The densities were
calculated using PVTsim (by Calsep) using the SRK equation
of state. At surface, the HP acid gas density varies from 0.63
to 0.75 g/cc (at 2,500 psia) depending on temperature. At
reservoir conditions, pure acid gas (supercritical fluid) has a
density of approximately 0.8 g/cc.
The solubilities of HP acid gas in reservoir brine were
estimated at different pressures and temperatures and are
plotted in Fig. 7. The solubility of acid gas in brine at 2500
psia is approximately 170 scf/bbl. At reservoir conditions the
solubility of acid gas in brine is ~200 scf/bbl.
The density and solubility data provided in the figures can
be used to estimate the volumes of injection fluids for the two
options: (a) pure acid gas injection, and (b) acid gas dissolved
in brine. The solubility data suggests that, for complete
solubility of acid gas in brine at ~2,500 psia, it will require
~175,000 barrels of brine per day.
Surface Facilities. Based on initial pressure (acid gas from
the amine regeneration system ~12 psig) and final pressure
(~2,500 psi at surface based on reservoir conditions)
requirements, two six-stage acid gas compressor trains were
considered for installation, each processing 30 MMscfd of
acid gas (one spare). Each compressor is equipped with
suction scrubber drums to remove any entrained free water
during compressor stages and aerial coolers to reduce stage
outlet temperatures to ~140oF (Fig. 6). The compressed acid
gas (dense fluid at 2,500 psi) will then flow through a 3 km
stainless steel pipe to the injection wells for disposal. The
pipeline will be jacketed within a carbon steel pipe for safety
reasons. One option was to mix the HP gas with ~175 MBD of
produced water and dispose it using the water injectors.
Appropriate leak detection instrumentation and control

www.petroman.ir

SPE-93387

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Case Study

systems were considered for installation to provide immediate

isolation and shutdown options. This control system should
also allow full emergency control of wellsite from the plant,
including shutting the wells and closing the downhole safety
valves.
Economic Analysis. An economic analysis was conducted to
evaluate the acid gas injection scheme in comparison to
installing a sulfur recovery unit. Two cases were considered
during the analysis (a) pure acid gas and (b) acid gas dissolved
in water. The SRU option was a typical Claus process for
sulfur recovery. Table 2 shows the initial capital costs for the
SRU and the two AGI options. The AGI options include both
the surface and subsurface (injection well) costs. The initial
capital costs in the table indicate that injecting acid gas mixed
with water will be disqualified due to the large number of
wells required for injection. All options considered for sulfur
are economically unattractive and generate negative netbacks.
Injection of pure acid gas has lower capital costs than a SRU.
However, an incremental economic cost analysis that included
the operating costs and the revenues from sulfur suggests that
a SRU is the most economic option to process the acid gas as
shown in Table 2.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are:
AGI is a proven technology and can be used for disposing
sulfur (as H2S).
AGI can result in near zero emissions as long as the
compressors are operational. Downtime for the
compressors in operating facilities is generally less than
1-2%.
Phase behavior aspects of acid gases are very important
and a clear understanding is required for proper AGI
design.
One of the most important factors for the success of an
AGI scheme is finding a suitable subsurface reservoir for
injection. A shallow reservoir is a distinct advantage
because it reduces the cost of compression, a major cost
factor in AGI.
The efficiency of an AGI scheme is relatively insensitive
to compositional changes in acid gas feed compared to
SRU.
Safety is a major concern with an AGI scheme. However,
this is an addressable issue and to date no major accidents
have been reported in any of the more than 40 operating
AGI facilities worldwide.
AGI schemes have been successful in Canada due to
tough environmental regulations, availability of depleted
hydrocarbon reservoirs for disposal, generally low rates of
acid gas streams, low sulfur demand and price, and
quality of acid gas.
Acid gas can be either directly injected into the
subsurface as a dense fluid, or it can be first dissolved in
water and then disposed off with the water. Both
processes have pros and cons. However, most of the
operating AGI schemes are direct injection schemes.
Whether the acid gas stream has to be dehydrated before
injection is debatable. By understanding the phase
behavior of acid gas/water systems, and taking advantage

of the water dropout in between compression stages, it

may be possible to eliminate dehydration facilities.
The current AGI schemes generally operate at less than 5
MMscfd with only a couple of schemes injecting at higher
rates than 5 MMscfd. At the low flow rates of acid gas
injection, it has an advantage over a sulfur recovery plant.

Recommendations
Sulfur Prices. Sulfur production is anticipated to increase
worldwide. The demand and price of sulfur has a
significant impact on whether AGI is economic and
feasible.
Tougher
environmental
Environmental
Issues.
regulations may necessitate the use of more expensive
sulfur recovery schemes. As these costs become higher,
AGI should be considered because the overall emissions
to the atmosphere can be greatly reduced.
Flexibility. AGI provides flexibility to gas plants that are
currently operating with SRUs. During downtime, it is
possible to inject the acid gases into the subsurface
without backing off feed gas to the plant. This option can
also be considered where the SRUs are operating at
higher than design capacity.
Case-by-Case Study. Detailed feasibility studies for AGI
must be conducted on a case-by-case basis to evaluate
economic, environmental, operational, safety and
technical design considerations. Potential concerns with
fluid phase behavior, solubility, and compatibility with
the injected zone matrix can be evaluated in the
laboratory to optimize the AGI process and reduce
operator risk. These include:
o Fluid-Fluid Interactions. Compatibility of injected
acid gas with reservoir fluids (both water and oil)
including PVT, solubility, phase diagrams and fluid
properties.
o Fluid-Solid Interactions. Compatibility of injected
acid gas with reservoir rock. This should include the
reaction of the injected fluid with rock minerals and
the precipitation of solids.
Alternate Uses of Sulfur. Research much be conducted to
find alternate uses and markets for sulfur.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the following personnel
for their valuable input to the project:
Pierre Crevier, Al Compton, Dean French and Vivek
Goswamy for useful discussions
All the members of the Acid Gas Injection Study Team
who contributed to the case study reported here.
References
1. Wichert, E. and Royan, T., Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas
Injection, SPE 35585 presented at the Gas Technology
Conference, Calgary, Canada, April (1996).
2. Ho, K.T., McMullen, J., Boyle, P., Rojek, O., Forgo, M.,
Beaty, T., and Longworth, H.L., Subsurface Acid Gas
Disposal Scheme in Waybe-Rosedale, Alberta, SPE
35848 presented at the International Conference on

www.petroman.ir

10

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Kokal and Al-Utaibi

Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana,

June (1996).
Carroll, J.J. and Maddocks, J., Design Considerations for
Acid Gas Injection, Laurence Reid Gas Conditioning
Conference, Norman, Oklahoma, February (1999).
Carroll, J.J., Physical Properties Relevant to Acid Gas
Injection, Paper presented at the Venezuelan GPA
International Gas Convention, Caracas, May (2000).
Carroll, J.J., and Lui, D.W., Density, Phase Behavior
Keys to Acid Gas Injection, Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 6372, June (1997).
Carroll, J.J., Aqualibrium Software, Gas Liquids
Engineering (1993).
Lock, B.W., Acid Gas Disposal: A Field Perspective,
Proceedings of the 76th GPA Annual Convention, San
Antonio (1997).
Chapin, D., Jarrett, F., Johnson, J. and Vohra, V., Should
I Make Sulfur or Reinject the Acid Gas?, Proceedings of
the GPA Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Denver
(2000).
Wichert, E. and Royan, T., Acid Gas Injection Eliminates
Sulfur Recovery Expense, Oil and Gas Journal, pp 6772, April (1998).
Whatley, L., Acid Gas Injection Proves Economic, Oil
and Gas Journal, pp 58-61, May (2000).
Duncan, G.J., and Hartford, C.A., Design, Operation of
Acid Gas Injection/Disposal Wells, World Oil, pp 69-75,
October (1998)
Duncan, G.J., and Hartford, C.A., Get Rid of
Greenhouse Gases by Downhole Disposal Guidelines
for Acid Gas Injection Wells, SPE 48923 presented at
the Annual Conf. and Exh., New Orleans, September
(1998)
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.W., and Bietz,
R.F., Formation Screening to Minimize Permeability
Impairment Associated with Acid Gas Or Sour Gas
Injection/Disposal, Paper CIM 96-93 presented at the
Petroleum Society of CIM and CANMET, Calgary,
Alberta, June (1996).
Duckworth, G.L., Kopperson, D., Horne, S., Kohn, G.,
Romansky, D., and Chan, C., Disposal of Acid Gases
with Oilfield Produced Water, Proceedings of the 77th
GPA Annual Convention, Dallas (1998).
Kopperson, D., Horne, S., Kohn, G., Romansky, D.,
Chan, C. and Duckworth, G.L., Two Cases Illustrate
Acid Gas/Water Injection Scheme, Oil and Gas Journal,
pp 64-70, June (1998).
Kopperson, D., Horne, S., Kohn, G., Romansky, D.,
Chan, C. and Duckworth, G.L., Injecting Acid Gas with
Water Creates New Disposal Option, Oil and Gas
Journal, pp 33-37, August (1998).
Longworth, H.L., Dunn, G.C. and Semchuck, M.,
Underground Disposal of Acid Gas Injection in Alberta,
Canada, SPE 35584 presented at the Gas Technology
Conference, Calgary, Canada, April (1996).
Clark, M.A., Svrcek, W.Y., Monnery, W.D., Jamaluddin,
A.K.M., Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Wichert, E., Reed,
A.E. and Johnson, J., Designing an Optimized Injection
Strategy for Acid Gas Disposal Without Dehydration,

SPE-93387

Proceedings of the 77th GPA Annual Convention, Dallas

(1998).

Table 1: Acid Gas Injection Compressor Specifications

Flow rate,
MMscfd
Suction
pressure, psi
Suction
Temp., oF
Discharge
Pressure, psi
Discharge
Temp. oF

Stage
1
30

Stage
2

Stage
3

Stage
4

Stage
5

Stage
6

26

52

107

230

500

1110

129

140

140

140

140

140

57

112

235

505

1115

2615

291

290

289

286

288

267

Table 2: Economic Analysis

SRU
AGI (pure)
AGI
(with water)

www.petroman.ir

Capital
Costs
($MM)
79
76
199

Operating Costs
($MM/Year)
6.6
4.8

NPV @
15%
($MM)
(92.7)
(99.7)

2000

H2S
CO2
25:75 H2S:CO2
50:50 H2S:CO2
75:25 H2S:CO2

1500

1000

CP Locus

Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)

2000

CP

CP

500

0
-100

100

H2S
CO2
50:50 H2S:CO2

1500

49.5:49.5:1 H2S:CO2:C1
47.5:47.5:5 H2S:CO2:C1

1000

500

0
-100

200

100

Temperature (F)

Figure 2: Phase diagram for acid gas

components and mixtures

1200

Water Content (lb/MMscf)

H2S
CO2
25:75 H2S:CO2
50:50 H2S:CO2
75:25 H2S:CO2

500

H2S

1000

3-phase
regions

75:25 H2S:CO2

800
600

50:50 H2S:CO2

400

25:75 H2S:CO2

200

CO2

25

50

75

100

400

Temperature (F)

0.8

4000

0.6
0.4

100 F
110 F
120 F
130 F
140 F

0.2

Pressure (psia)

5000

2000

3000

4000

1600

5000

Bottomhole

3000
6th Stage
Wellhead

2000

Hydrates
5th Stage

1000

0.0
1000

1200

Figure 4: Water content of acid gas

mixtures at 120oF

1.0

800

Pressure (psia)

Figure 3: Hydrate forming conditions for

acid gas components and their mixtures

Density of Acid Gas (g/cc)

Pressure (psi)

2000

1000

200

Temperature (F)

Figure 1: Phase diagram for acid gas

components and mixtures

1500

CP
CP

6000

4th Stage
3rd Stage

0
-100

100

200

300

Temperature ( F)

Pressure (psia)

Figure 6: Phase envelope for acid gas and

compression stages

Figure 5: Density of Acid Gas at P, T

www.petroman.ir

400

Soubility of Acid Gas (scf/bbl)

300
Brine TDS ~60,000 ppm

200

100
110 F
120 F
130 F
140 F

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Pressure (psia)

Figure 7: Solubility of Acid Gas in Reservoir Brine

www.petroman.ir