This article was downloaded by:

On: 27 November 2009

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Chemical Engineering Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713454788

MODELING AND SIMULATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE REMOVAL

FROM PETROLEUM PRODUCTION LINES BY CHEMICAL
SCAVENGERS
Krishnaswamy Rajagopal a; Rogério Lacerda b; Ivan Slobodcicov c; Eugenio Campagnolo c
a
Laboratório de Termodinâmica e Cinética Aplicada (LATCA), Escola de Química, Universidade
Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil b Departamento de Engenharia Química e do Petróleo,
Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil c Centro de Pesquisa e
Desenvolvimento (CENPES), Tecnologia de Recuperação e Análises de Reservatórios e de Elevação e
Escoamento, PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

To cite this Article Rajagopal, Krishnaswamy, Lacerda, Rogério, Slobodcicov, Ivan and Campagnolo, Eugenio'MODELING
AND SIMULATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE REMOVAL FROM PETROLEUM PRODUCTION LINES BY CHEMICAL
SCAVENGERS', Chemical Engineering Communications, 196: 10, 1237 — 1248
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00986440902832100
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986440902832100

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Chem. Eng. Comm., 196:1237–1248, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0098-6445 print=1563-5201 online
DOI: 10.1080/00986440902832100

Modeling and Simulation of Hydrogen Sulfide

Removal from Petroleum Production Lines
by Chemical Scavengers

KRISHNASWAMY RAJAGOPAL,1
ROGÉRIO LACERDA,2 IVAN SLOBODCICOV,3 AND
EUGENIO CAMPAGNOLO3
1
Laborat
orio de Termodinâmica e Cinética Aplicada (LATCA), Escola de
Quı́mica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2
Departamento de Engenharia Quı́mica e do Petr oleo, Escola de
Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niter oi, Brazil
3
Centro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (CENPES), Tecnologia de
Recuperação e An
alises de Reservat
orios e de Elevação e Escoamento,
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The in-line scavenging of hydrogen sulfide is the preferred method for minimizing the
corrosion and operational risks in offshore oil production. We model hydrogen sul-
fide removal from multiphase produced fluids prior to phase separation and proces-
sing by injection of triazine solution into their gas phase. Using a kinetic model and
multiphase simulator, the flow regimes, amounts, and composition of three phases
are determined along the horizontal and vertical flow path from subsea well to
separator tank. The flow regimes were found to be slug flow or intermittent flow.
The highly reactive triazine is destroyed on contact with water phase flowing near
the wall. We have simulated the hydrogen sulfide concentration profiles for different
amounts of gas injection. The results are compatible with the available field
data from an offshore oil well and are useful in determining the injection rates of
expensive chemical scavengers and optimal gas injection rates.

Keywords Hydrogen sulfide removal; Gas lift injection; Multiphase flow reactor;
Sour oil production; Triazine scavenger solution

Introduction
In several petroleum reservoirs, the concentration of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has been
observed to increase unexpectedly in gaseous, oil, and aqueous phases of produced
fluids. This concentration is typically measured in parts per million by volume
(ppmv) in the gas phase relative to a partition from oil and an aqueous phase with
a pH equal to or less than 5 at standard temperature and pressure (STP), of 20
C and
1 atm absolute pressure. When the concentration of H2S exceeds 3 ppmv in the gas

Address correspondence to Krishnaswamy Rajagopal, Laborat orio de Termodinâmica e

Cinética Aplicada (LATCA), Escola de Quı́mica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av.
Horacio Macedo, 2030. Ed. do Centro de Tecnologia, Bloco E – sala 209, C.P. 68502, Cidade
Universitaria, CEP 21949-900, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil. E-mail: raja@eq.ufrj.br

1237
 1238 K. Rajagopal et al.

phase, the oil well is deemed to be sour, and precautions are necessary in design and
operation of production, transport, and storage equipment due to H2S toxicity, cor-
rosion, plugging of reservoir formations, and increased sulfur content of produced
oil. Some oil fields in the North Sea and Campos Basin (Brazil) have turned sour
after a few years of injection of seawater for improved recovery of oil (Eden et al.,
1993). Many studies have attributed this souring to the activity of sulfate-reducing
bacteria and resultant production of biogenic H2S, except in a few cases of very high
pressure reservoirs where there is evidence for a geochemcial mechanism as well
(Farquhar, 1998). Many production facilities were unfortunately previously designed
and built without considering the effect of these organisms on their operation and
maintenance. From the experience of North Sea oil fields, we can expect about
10% of the oil wells to suffer from increased corrosion of tubing, casing, and produc-
tion facilities, iron sulfide deposition, and injection and wellbore plugging, as well as
safety, health, and environmental concerns during the economic production life of
the field.
The souring of petroleum reservoirs caused mainly by sulfate-reducing bacteria
can increase the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in produced fluids to the point of
making it necessary to inject expensive chemical scavengers in production pipelines
so that the corrosion and operational risks can be minimized. In-line scavenging of
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

hydrogen sulfide is the preferred method for production of crude oil containing low
hydrogen sulfide levels from subsea wells, especially where the well is tied back via a
flowline to a host facility at which there is no provision for H2S scavenging and=or
where a H2S removal facility is too expensive and=or impractical to install (Nagl,
2001). As a result of this method, the hydrogen sulfide content of the crude oil that
is delivered to the platform is reduced to safe and commercially acceptable levels and
reaction by-product formation is manageable. The formation water provides a car-
rier phase for some of the reaction products and enhances the dispersion of some
insoluble reaction products in the coproduced aqueous phase.
We model this chemical process using available field data so that the cost of
removal of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) can be reduced by determining optimal gas injec-
tion rates as well as the rate of injection of chemical scavengers in production lines.
The proposed methodology is also useful in selecting alternative scavengers. In the
literature, models have been proposed for treating single-phase natural gas with
liquid scavengers (Fisher et al., 2003). There is little information about in situ
removal of hydrogen sulfide from multiphase streams.

Chemical System
The chemical system considered is a subsea flowline connecting a mature subsea oil
well to an offshore production facility, schematically shown in Figure 1. The reser-
voir fluids, namely, formation water, crude oil, and its associated gas, flow into
production lines at point 13. The oil phase is initially above the bubble point pres-
sure, and the gas lift process is used to transport and lift the reservoir fluids from
the well to the production platform. The widely used liquid chemical scavenger
1,3,5-tris (2-hydroxyethyl)-1,3,5-triazinane (‘‘triazine’’) is atomized into the lift gas
pipeline and the mist is homogenized by flow. Then the lift gas with the scavenger
mist is continuously injected into the production line through a mandrel after
segment 8. The scavenger droplets disperse through the produced fluid substantially
homogeneously because of the natural turbulence of the fluid flow. As the pressure
 Modeling H2S Removal by Scavengers 1239
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

Figure 1. Flow path and flow regimes of the chemical system.

drops below the bubble point, a gas phase containing part of the H2S is formed. The
droplets of triazine injected into the gas phase decompose H2S by the nucleophilic
substitution of sulfur into the triazine ring, and the droplets encountering water
phase are rapidly hydrolyzed in a competing reaction. The reactions take place in
the multiphase flow along the flowline. The reaction products disperse in the liquid
phase. The lift gas is recovered from the oil at a separation stage and is reused.
The geometry of chemical system is shown in Table I.

Simulation of the Chemical System

The chemical system considered corresponds to an existing offshore oil well in the
Campos Basin of Brazil, which has turned sour after injection of seawater for several
years. Besides design data, the available field data are flow rates of reservoir fluids:
839 m3=day of oil, 1,300 m3=day of water, and 79,000 m3=day of free gas for a lift gas
injection rate of 171,552 m3=day. All flow rates cited in this work are in STP m3 per
day (at standard temperature and pressure of 293.15 K and 101325 Pa) per day. The
concentration of H2S in the separator reduced from 450 to 10 ppmv after injection of
2.4 STP m3=d of a commercial chemical scavenger, triazine. The system is modeled
using available data along with several physical properties measured for the purpose
of this study (Table IIA). The simulation is done in three steps: (1) multiphase simu-
lation to determine the pressure, temperature, velocity of each phase, liquid holdup,
and flow rates of each phase, (2) estimating the phase distribution of hydrogen
sulfide from total amount or from gas phase concentration, and (3) estimating
 Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

Table I. Segments of flow path from offshore platform to subsea well, empirical correlations used for multiphase flow, predicted flow
regime in each segment for different injection rates of lift gas

Predicted flow
Tube Lining Angle= Ambient regime for
Segment diameter diameter horizontal temperature 40–600%
no. Flow line Length [m] [inch] [inch] [deg] [
C] Correlation used gas lift
1 Subsea line 790 6.00 0 90 25.0 Duns and Ros (1963) Slug
2 Subsea line 150 6.00 0 2.3 4.0 Beggs and Brill (1973); Intermittent
Palmer (1975)
3 Subsea line 1200 6.00 0 2.3 4.0 Beggs and Brill (1973); Intermittent
Palmer (1975)
4 Subsea line 80 4.00 0 2.3 4.0 Beggs and Brill (1973); Intermittent
Palmer (1975)
5 Well=column 18.4 3.95 8.681 90 4.7 Orkiszewski (1967) Slug

1240
6 Well=column 482.6 4.88 8.681 90 22.1 Orkiszewski (1967) Slug
7 Well=column 544 4.88 8.681 69.6 40.5 Orkiszewski (1967) Slug
8 Well=column 250 4.88 8.681 59.2 48.2 Orkiszewski (1967) Slug
Lift gas injection N.A. 4.88 8.681 58.8 57.7 Orkiszewski (1967) Bubble
9 Well=column 222.7 4.88 8.681 58.8 57.7 Orkiszewski (1967) Bubble
10 Well=column 358 4.88 8.681 54.2 68.2 Orkiszewski (1967) Bubble=
liquid
11 Well=column 50 3.94 8.681 31.6 69.1 Orkiszewski (1967) Liquid
12 Well=column 53 4.88 8.681 27.3 70.0 Beggs and Brill (1973); Liquid
Palmer (1975)
13 Well=column 194 4.88 8.681 11.5 70.0 Beggs and Brill (1973); Liquid
Palmer (1975)
 Modeling H2S Removal by Scavengers 1241

Table IIA. Measured properties of the fluids

Reservoir fluids Scavenger solution

Surface
Temperature Viscosity Density Temperature tension
Property Value

C cP g=cm3

C mN=m
Density of 0.710 10 160.88 1.0319 — —
formation (air ¼ 1.0)
gas
Density 0.640 20 86.23 1.0246 19.9 30.04
of lift gas (air ¼ 1.0)
Density of 0.660 30 49.41 1.0172 30.4 29.12
produced (air ¼ 1.0)
gas
Gas-oil ratio 86.0 40 30.03 1.0097 40.8 28.34
(m3=m3)
Density 0.935 50 19.25 1.0021 50.0 27.9
of oil (water ¼ 1.0)
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

Viscosity 218.70 (cP) 60 12.93 0.9943 60.5 27.05

of oil
at 30
C
Viscosity 69.36 (cP) 70 9.03 0.9864 — —
of oil
at 50
C
Wax appearance 20.0 (
C) 80 6.51 0.9782 — —
temperature
Density of 1.030 90 4.82 0.9698 — —
formation (water ¼ 1.0)
water

scavenging reaction rates and gas phase concentration of hydrogen sulfide along the
flow path. The proposed methodology is described below for each of the steps.

Multiphase Flow Simulation

The flow in the production tubes was simulated using in-house software. The follow-
ing three components of pressure drop along a flow path were considered: hydro-
static head, velocity head, and frictional loss. Frictional loss occurs both between
the fluid and the pipe and between the phases. The flow rates and properties of
the phases determine the physical arrangement of the fluid, and this arrangement
determines the pressure drop. The conceptual model was developed according to
the data available and the basic assumptions on multiphase fluid hydrodynamics
outlined above. All the main features of the production line were represented in
the simulator environment in order to perform the calculations. The simulation
model was applied to predict the flow regime and pressure drop along the production
line from the reservoir up to the platform.
 1242 K. Rajagopal et al.

For the purpose of simulation, the flowline from surface to reservoir was divided
into 13 segments based on the inclination and location, whether the line is located
under the seabed or not. Suitable empirical correlations were used to determine
the flow regime and pressure drop along the tubes. The pressure drop due to fittings
and valves was included by manufacturer’s specifications. Each segment was divided
in to sub-segments for calculating pressure drop and heat transfer more precisely.
Table I also shows the empirical multiphase correlation used and the predicted flow
regime in different segments for a range of injected lift gases. Figure 1 shows the evo-
lution of the flow regimes along the line. Between the reservoir and the point of the
gas lift injection the flow regime goes from liquid phase to bubbling flow, and after
the gas lift injection up to the platform the flow regime is slug. The heavier water
phase flows generally as an annulus near the wall. The temperature, pressure, and
flow rates of oil, water, and gas phases were determined along the flow path by this
simulation for different gas lift rates, ranging from 40% to 600% of field flow rate.

Estimation of Phase Distribution of H2S

From the available literature data (Eden et al., 1993) we developed a correlation to
estimate the equilibrium constant of hydrogen sulfide between oil and water phases
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

(K oil=water) from temperature, pressure, and gas-oil ratio. The equilibrium Henry’s
constant KH2S for the gas=oil phases and for gas=water phases was correlated with
temperature at low pressures. The correlation is shown in Figure 2. In this condition,
the equilibrium constants are independent of composition and pressure and the
distribution coefficient K oil=water is calculated at each temperature (Figure 3).
The salt concentration of the particular case under study was similar to that in the
literature data used. If the compositions of the phases are very different from the
literature case, it is advisable to determine the equilibrium constant by experiment.
The thermodynamic equilibrium of oil, water, and gas phases was calculated using
the Sour Peng-Robinson (Sour PR) model. This model combines the Peng-Robinson
equation of state and Wilson’s API-Sour Model for handling sour water systems and
can be applied to sour water processes containing hydrocarbons, acid gases, and
H2O. The method uses Wilson’s model to account for the ionization of the H2S,

Figure 2. Linear correlations for equilibrium constants of oil and formation water.
 Modeling H2S Removal by Scavengers 1243

CO2, and NH3 in the aqueous water phase. The fugacities of the vapor and liquid
hydrocarbon phases as well as the enthalpy for all three phases were calculated using
this equation of state. The K-values for the aqueous phase were calculated using
Wilson’s API-Sour method (American Petroleum Institute, 1978).
The Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) tests were done to determine the
reservoir fluid composition and physical properties like dissolved gas content and
residual oil density. The liberated gas and residual oil compositions were obtained
by gas chromatography. The H2S concentration was determined by spectroscopy.
The oil phase is considered as a semi-continuous mixture with components and
fractions based on normal boiling point. The fractions and the residue are considered
as pseudo-components. The binary interaction parameters are obtained by tuning
with PVT tests. Table IIB shows the reservoir fluid composition and physical pro-
perties obtained from the PVT analysis.
The pressure variation along the tube was calculated using the Peng-Robinson
equation of state, considering the composition of the fluids without hydrogen
sulfide.

Estimation of Reaction Rates

Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

Buhaug (2002) reported the kinetics of triazine liquid reacting with gaseous hydrogen
sulfide and buffered water solution. In the scavenging reaction, the concentration
variation of triazine in contact with hydrogen sulfide gas was determined by isotopic
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) studies and the rate was determined to be first
order in hydrogen sulfide concentration:

d½T=dt ¼ ka ½THþ½HS for pH > 10 ð1Þ

with ka ¼ 9.1  107 Ka [mol 2 * s] where Ka is the acid constant of triazine in

solution. The author has also concluded that the reaction will be first order and fast
for pH < 10. The reported kinetic constants may, however, have large errors,

Table IIB. Reservoir fluid composition

Component Mole fraction Pseudo-component Mole fraction

H 2S 70 ppm C6 fraction 0.015
Methane 0.449 C7 fraction 0.022
CO2 0.000 C8 fraction 0.041
Nitrogen 0.003 C9 fraction 0.043
Ethane 0.031 C10 fraction 0.040
Propane 0.018 C11 fraction 0.039
i-Butane 0.005 C12 fraction 0.037
n-Butane 0.025 C13 fraction 0.045
i-Pentane 0.004 C14 fraction 0.038
n-Pentane 0.005 C15 fraction 0.040
C16 fraction 0.031
C17 fraction 0.027
C18 fraction 0.025
C19þ residue 0.018
 1244 K. Rajagopal et al.

especially if extrapolated to low pH values. The triazine is rapidly hydrolyzed on

contact with water with reported kinetics of

d½T=dt ¼ kH ½T½H for pH < 10 ð2Þ

with kH ¼ 1.42  106 s1 at 22
C and 3.40  108 s1 at 60
C. The hydrolysis will be
almost instantaneous for pH values of 5 or below.
We model the kinetics of hydrogen sulfide removal by triazine injection with the
following considerations. The triazine solution is atomized into gas stream in nearly
uniform droplets about 10 mm diameter. The smaller and larger droplets have small
survival times. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of the flow sup-
ports this consideration. The highly reactive triazine in the droplets will be destroyed
almost instantly on contact with water phase flowing near the wall. The rate of
removal of hydrogen sulfide is limited by the rate of mass transfer of H2S from
the gas phase to scavenger solution droplets. The oil, water, and gas phases are in
thermodynamic equilibrium along the flow path.
The rate of removal of H2S is estimated using a model that combines mass trans-
fer resistance and reaction. Fisher et al. (2003) have used this model for natural gas
treatment. The amount transferred is estimated using the rate equation:
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

dyH2 S KG aPyH2 S
¼ ð3Þ
dz G

where yH2S is mole fraction of H2S in the gas phase; G is molar gas velocity, mol=m2s;
Z is tube length, m; KG is overall mass transfer coefficient, mol=m2 s bar; a is
interfacial area, m2=m3; and P is pressure, bar.
The pressure and molar gas velocity will vary along the path. We have estimated
the rate constant (KGa) using the field data of H2S concentration with and without
injection of scavenger solution for same rate of lift gas injection and flow rates in the

Figure 3. Equilibrium constant K oil=water for hydrogen sulfide at low pressures (unasso-
ciated hydrogen sulfide and formation water with pH ¼ 5).
 Modeling H2S Removal by Scavengers 1245

offshore oil well under study. The H2S concentration at the entrance was obtained by
mass balance at steady-state operation of the well without injecting triazine. KGa
was determined from the measured operational concentration of H2S while injecting
a known rate of triazine solution with known lift gas rate.

Results and Conclusions

The chemical system was simulated using the above methodology for different lift
gas injection rates with and without scavenger solution. For the case of normal
gas lift operation injecting 171,552 STP m3=day (100% gas lift) without scavenger
solution, the temperature and pressure profiles are shown in Figure 4. The flow rates
of different phases are shown in Figure 5. The flow regimes were found to be gener-
ally slug flow or intermittent flow. The amounts and concentration of hydrogen
sulfide are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The simulated value of 448 ppmv compares well
with the measured value of 450 ppmv in the separator.
The hydrogen sulfide concentration profile for the case of production without
lift gas and without scavenger solution is shown in Figure 8. The simulated concen-
tration is 1635 ppmv. The production was shut down in the field when the con-
centration exceeded 1000 ppmv. Figure 8 also shows the hydrogen sulfide
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

concentration profile for the case of injection of 1 million STP m3=day (582.9%
gas lift). The simulated value is 108 ppmv in the separator compared to the expected
value of about 100 ppmv.
The normal gas lift operation (100% gas lift) with injection of 2.4 m3=day
of liquid triazine was simulated. The hydrogen sulfide concentration profile is shown
in Figure 8. The methodology effectively correlates the measured concentration of 10
ppmv at the separator. The rate constants were re-estimated considering that the rate

Figure 4. Pressure and temperature profile along the flow path (gas lift of 171,552 STP
m3=day without scavenger solution).
 1246 K. Rajagopal et al.

Figure 5. Flow rates of gas, oil, and water phases (gas lift of 171,552 STP m3=day without
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

scavenger solution).

constant proportionately varies with the square root of absolute temperature. The
effect on the profile was negligible.
In all cases studied, the proposed model and methodology of simulation were
found to be effective in simulating the chemical system. The simulation studies
indicate the need for better atomization so that the gas phase concentration of

Figure 6. Distribution of hydrogen sulfide among the three phases (gas lift of 171,552 STP
m3=day without scavenger solution).
 Modeling H2S Removal by Scavengers 1247

Figure 7. Concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the three phases (gas lift of 171,552 STP
m3=day without scavenger solution).
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

H2S can be reduced to acceptable levels immediately after the Christmas tree, as the
pipelines were of less noble material with little resistance to corrosion by H2S. The
proposed methodology can be readily used for evaluating any scavenger with known
kinetics. The accuracy of simulation can be improved by using measured distribution
coefficients of H2S between the oil, water, and gas phases.

Figure 8. Comparison of concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the gas phase with and without
injection of scavenger solution. Case 1, without injection of lift gas and scavenger solution, ~;
.
case 2, with injection of lift gas of 171,552 STP m3=day without scavenger solution, ; case 3,
with injection of lift gas of 1,000,000 STP m3=day without scavenger solution, ; case 4, with
injection of lift gas of 171,552 STP m3=day and 2.4 m3=day of triazine, —.
 1248 K. Rajagopal et al.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of CENPES-PETROBRAS and of
MCT=FINEP=CTPETRO=PETROBRAS under the project number: FBR 2528-06,
entitled, ‘‘Distribuição do G
as Sulfı́drico entre Óleos Pesados, Gas Liberado e a Água
de Formação nas Condições de Reservat orio.’’ The authors thank CNPq for the
scholarship ‘‘Bolsa de produtividade’’ to Krishnaswamy Rajagopal and FINEP=
CNPq for DTI scholarships to Ian Hovell and Luis Augusto Medeiros Rutledge for
making several experimental property measurements.

References
American Petroleum Institute. (1978). A New Correlation of NH3, CO2, and H2S Volatility
Data from Aqueous Sour Water Systems, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P. (1973). The study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes, J. Pet. Tech-
nol., 255, 607.
Buhaug, J. B. (2002). Investigation of the chemistry of liquid H2S scavengers, Ph.D. diss.,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and
Technology.
Duns, H. and Ros, N. C. J. (1963). Vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures from boreholes,
Downloaded At: 09:05 27 November 2009

paper 22–106, presented at the Sixth World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt, 19–26 June.
Eden, B., Laycock, P. J., and Fielder, M. (1993). Oil Field Souring, HSE Books, Liverpool.
Farquhar, G. B. (1998). Review and update of technology related to formation souring,
Corros. Prev. Contr., 45(2), 51–56.
Fisher, K. S., Leppin, D., Palla, R., and Jamal, A. (2003). Process engineering for natural gas
treatment using direct-injection H2S scavengers, GasTIPS, 9(2), 12–17.
Nagl, G. J. (2001). Removing H2S from gas streams: Four leading technologies are compared
here, Chem. Eng., 108(7), 97–100.
Orkiszewski, J. (1967). Predicting two-phase flow pressure drops in vertical pipes, J. Pet.
Technol., 19, 829–838.
Palmer, C. M. (1975). Evaluation of inclined pipe two-phase liquid holdup correlations using
experimental data, MS thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Department of
Petroleum Engineering.