Jump to content

Talk:Amine gas treating

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need more information

[edit]

I NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AMINE DEGRADATION IN GAS TREATING PLANT i.e TO REMOVE H2S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.54 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You really should not "shout" by using all capital letters, and you should always sign your messages. That will make it more likely that people will help you. mbeychok 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help me with the material selection. As in, which metals/alloys to use to design different parts of the whole unit ? Sambuddhaadhikari (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Sambuddhaadhikari 14 May 2013[reply]

Major expansion

[edit]

I just finished a major expansion of the this article and I have removed the stub tag because I think it is no longer warrants a stub. The article could still use more Wiki links, external links and references. mbeychok 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted the drawing change made by [[User:Goatchze}

The original process flow diagram in this article (which I drew) contains more information and does so in much less space than does the commercial process flow diagram that User:Goatchze provided to replace the original drawing. The original drawing does nor require horizontal scrolling as does the commercial diagram provided by User:Goatchze.

The drawing provided by User:Goatchze is one developed for the commercial firm of Bryan Engineering and Research (BRE) ... probably for their PROMAX simulation program that they sell. I have a great deal of respect for BRE and they are an acknowledged leader in the field of amine gas treating. They are quite well represented in the external links section of this article. The commercial drawing provided by User:Goatchze is a "slicker", more "eyecatching" drawing for promoting BRE's expertise ... but it does not provide as much content as does the original schematic flow diagram that I drew in the much more traditional process engineering manner.

I believe that User:Goatchze's real name is -[removed by Goatchze]-(go to Goatchze's talk page to get his name) and he is an employee as an engineer in training (EIT) of the Bryan Engineering and Research Company. I welcome him to Wikipedia but I must caution him that he should be careful about writing articles or editing existing articles with material that might be construed as promoting his company.

Be that as it may, my primary reason for reverting back to the original drawing is that it is a better schematic process flow diagram with more information. Furthermore, the commercial drawing provided by User:Goatchze includes many equipment item numbers which are not explained at all.

Just as a matter of trivia, both User:Goatchze and myself are graduates of Texas A & M in Chemical Engineering. I was in the class of 1944 which I suspect was many decades before his class. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I will not deny that it is nice to see PFDs generated by ProMax on Wikipedia, the original intent was simply replacing the drawing with a "slicker" one, as you described. Using one that I already had seemed to be a convenient method, especially since that is the general format that process engineers see basic PFDs today (not P&IDs, which are still drawn with a CAD program or Visio). I also considered using standard Visio blocks for drawing the PFD, but I guess I got lazy. I hope that there was no offense by the replacement.
I did do my best to remove unnecessary blocks/units from the flow diagram that are required in the simulator, such as the recycle block. I also removed the BR&E watermark that is normally placed on flow sheets drawn in ProMax. Looking over at the glycol dehydration page I see that I did not do so for that schematic and will replace it (BR&E Logo is gone but unnecessary blocks remain). As you probably know I am fairly new to any kind of Wikipedia editing and am unsure what image size requires horizontal scrolling (at my resoultion none of my uploaded images required horizontal scrolling). Perhaps you could help me with this?
Thank you for the advisement. I realize that I am at times walking a fine line of self promotion, but my intent is simply to contribute information about the art in which we are involved to the general public. I take no offense if something is deemed inappropriate and removed.
Thanks to you and Google, I guess that I am "outted". I'm suprised I did not have my class written on my Blogger profile. Your suspicion is right, it was a few decades after you that I finished at A&M. Almost 6. Thanks for your help.Goatchze (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken by your original replacement. I am glad to see that you are aware that you are "at times walking a fine line os self promotion". Many of us have that same problem, and being aware of it is quite important. As for the maximum width of a drawing that will fit on an article page without requiring horizontal scrolling, the answer is 584 pixels (px). See the "Flow diagram of a typical oil refinery" in the Oil refinery article ... it has a width of 584px.
You can always reduce the size of a drawing by using the "thumb" format, which is: [[Image:Whatever|thumb|right (or left or center)|XXXpx|Whatever title you wish, if any]] where XXX represents the size selected. But you should be aware that size reduction often makes any text in the drawing too small to be legible and, in my opinion, reduces the resolution somewhat. Therefore, I always strive to make my drawings 584px or smaller and to make sure that my text font will be legible at whatever size that I made my drawing. Regards and welcome to Wikipedia, - mbeychok (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change?

[edit]

Mbeychok, I don't know if you're still out there, but I propose changing the title from Amine gas treating to Amine Sweetening. While Amine gas treating is technically a correct name for this process, Amine Sweetening is more commonly used in the literature and industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.36.178 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Goatchze (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goatchze, I don't presume to speak for Mbeychok, but personally I would leave the title as Amine gas treating. You might consider putting in a redirect from Amine Sweetening, since some users may query under that term.ChemE50 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, looks like you are someone else has already done the redirect. Thanks ChemE50.Goatchze (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Somewhat Off-Topic Additions

[edit]

Do WSA and the new section recently added really belong in this article? Neither involve alkanolamines in the traditional sense and neither can really be referred to as "Amine Sweetening" or "Amine Gas Treating" systems? Their inclusion would necessitate the inclusion of other chemical processes such as caustic treating, potassium carbonate or "Hot Pot", etc. Physical solvents would need to be included as well, such as Selexol, Rectisol, Purisol, etc. All perform the same function of acid gas removal.

But then the article wouldn't be "Amine Gas Treating". It would be "Acid Gas Removal". ?? Goatchze (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[WP:Silence] I have decided to remove the section concerning ION Engineering. For starters, it has always read like a press release or advertisement. Use of the phrase "is commercializing" and use of external links seems to show this point. Plus, the C&E external link is locked as subscriber only. Secondly, it doesn't belong on the amine sweetening page because it's simply not amine sweetening in the sense that most use the term.Goatchze (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with your deletion, Goatchze ... in my opinion it was pure and simple spam. mbeychok (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbeychok, you still lurk around here? I'll have to quit bad mouthing you now! J/KGoatchze (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercaptans

[edit]

Just wondering if the reference to mercaptans in the first couple of paragraphs should be amended or removed. Amines don't remove mercaptans from gas streams. They only remove the acid gases H2S and CO2. Mercaptans are generally removed in further treatments downstream involving caustic. That's how it works at my plant anyway.80.254.147.180 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Further advice would be welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gas streams are rarely, if ever, treated with caustic for mercaptan removal downstream of the refinery amine gas treating unit. Liquid streams (LPG, propane, jet fuel, etc., for example) are often treated with caustic (or proprietary processes such as Merox) for removing mercaptans. mbeychok (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Milton stated, amines do provide partial removal of mercaptans (See GPSA Databook Section 21, Fig.21-2). Some formulated solvents, such as Shell's Sulfinol, provide considerably better removal. While this increased removal is due to the addition of a physical absorption component, such as sulfolane, these formulated solvents are still generally considered amines in practice as the "additive" is only a small portion of the solution. The rest is amine and water. Goatchze (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a careless use of language on my part so apologies for the confusion. Obviously the gaseous stream (methane, ethane) is not treated with caustic. We have liquid products (C5+, stabilised crude) on site so I tend to refer to LPGs as gases. Gas streams (methane, ethane) are treated with amines and then a mole sieve for H2S removal down to 0.5ppm. The condensed gases (LPGs) are put through a mole-sieve for H2S removal and drying and then a caustic process to remove mercaptans. The mole-sieve product is considered sweet prior to entry to the caustic process. I was thinking that sour service is only defined in terms of H2S so when something is sweetened it only refers to removal of H2S. Mercaptans don't contribute to sour service and so their removal wouldn't be thought of as sweetening. 80.254.147.180 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon capture and storage

[edit]

I'll be adding a "Carbon Capture and Storage" section under "Uses" regarding using amine solvents for carbon capture. Specifically, the challenges of carbon capture using amine and future directions of anime technologies will be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiqiangHong (talk • contribs) 07:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amine gas treating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amine_gas_treating&oldid=1204812555"