Transcript H.O. Vent Gas JIP Introduction Session

PTAC Conventional Heavy Oil (CHO) Forum
“Heavy Oil Vent Gas Utilization”
Results of Pilot and Next Steps
Bruce Peachey, P.Eng. & Colin Gosselin, E.I.T.
New Paradigm Engineering Ltd.
June 20, 2000
The Target for Change
Oil & Gas Methane Emissions
Other
1%
Gas Processing
6%
Heavy Oil
Heavy Oil
Venting
Production
29%
29%
Product
Transmission
16%
Accidents and
Equipment Failures
5%
Conventional Oil
Production
8%
Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009
Gas Production
35%
The Prize

$50M/yr of methane vented from heavy oil sites
• Equivalent to 5% of O&G Industry energy use
$20-$40M/yr of energy purchased for heavy oil
sites
 GHG emissions from heavy oil wells

• 30% of oil & gas industry methane emissions
• 15% of oil & gas GHG emissions
• Over 2% of Canada’s GHG emissions

GHG, Flaring, and Odour Issues affecting ability
to develop new leases
The Need


An economic solution to maximize the use of
vented gas on the well lease
Ideal Solutions should:
•
•
•
•
Generate an economic benefit
Be low capital cost and easy maintenance
Not cause other problems – high reliability
Reduce GHG equivalent emissions
The Catalytic Solutions

Based on existing off the shelf catalytic heaters
• Heaters already in use by industry for building heat
• Well suited for remote/isolated locations
• Relatively low cost and safe compared to other
options
• Provide other economic and intangible benefits
• Benefit factor of 21 GHG reduction for fuel
replacement
• Minimum benefit factor of 7 GHG reduction for
converting methane to CO2
Catalytic vs. Thermal Combustion

Thermal
•
•
•
•

Flame temperature as high as 1500 - 2000 °C
Thermal formation of NOx
Narrow flammability limits
Operation control can be difficult
Catalytic
•
•
•
•
•
Flameless - temperature of reaction 350 - 500 °C
Low or zero emissions of NOx
Wide range of fuel concentrations
Higher process safety
Low visibility
Field Trials - Background





Operator’s successfully using casing gas as fuel
for engines and burners
Some leases must switch over to purchased fuel for
winter operations (propane or line gas) because of
freezing problems
Casing gas production exceeds on site fuel
requirements, venting excess
Looking for ways to maximize use of casing gas
year round
Economics and operability key drivers
Field Trials – Test Wells

9-9 (Line gas, Line heater test site)
• 20 m3/d oil, 9 m3/d water
• 120 bbl/d oil, 54 bbl/d water

4-21 (Propane)
• 12 m3/d oil, 1 m3/d water
• 72 bbl/d oil, 6 bbl/d water

7-25 (Propane)
• 3 m3/d oil, 12 m3/d water
• 18 bbl/d oil, 72 bbl/d water
Field Trials – Winterization Heaters


Catalytic Heater Winterization Systems installed on
three well sites in heavy oil operations
Winterization achieved by heating gas to minimize
condensation of water, keeping system above zero
to prevent freezing, and purging free water at key
points
Field Trials – Lessons Learned Part I

Based on initial runs
• High winds can blow out catalytic heaters in standard
housings
• Fuel lines to tank heaters need to be kept free of
water build-up
• Piping can be modified to reduce water to tank
heaters
• Improved insulation required to reduce heat loss and
cold drafts
• Automatic restart would help ensure continuous
operation
9-9 Winterization Heater
Temp (deg C)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Feb 16 - Apr 6, 2000
Ambient T
Gas Riser Temp
Field Trials – Lessons Learned Part II

Based on current operation
• Units have operated reliably through –25 degrees
and blizzards
• Systems can be started up in winter after an initial
period on purchased fuel to warm up the ground, but
fall start-up is better
• Systems allow use of vent gas for both catalytic
heaters and tank heaters
• Boxes ensure sufficient ventilation while reducing
wind effects
• Best application – Sites with buried fuel lines to tanks
Key Benefits of Winterization


Reduce fuel costs by 30-70 %
Rapid economic payout
• <3-4 months if propane backed out
• <1 yr if purchased natural gas backed out




Low Cost Alternative
Easily Retrofitted
High Operability
GHG equivalent emissions reductions achieved
• 21 tonnes of CO2eq/tonne of methane burned in
catalytic or tank heaters
Next Steps for Winterization
Systems


Ready for wider use
Rest of the learning will come from use
• Determine if auto restart needed
• Optimize installation details for various site layouts
• Operator training
• Develop standardized installation instructions

Equipment Price Range - $3,800 - $4,600
• depending on options
Field Trials – Line Heater



Designed to prove ability of catalytic heaters to run
on low pressure gas (under ½ psig) for applications
where it is undesirable to put back pressure on the
well
Also will test improvements in heat transfer
efficiency of heating a flow line versus fire tube
heaters in stagnant storage tanks
Skid mounted, portable unit designed to be
retrofitted into existing production lines
9-9 Production Line Heater
80
70
Temp (deg C)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
May 17 - June 1, 2000
Tout
Tin
Tout vs Production
80
70
Tout (deg C)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
Production (m3/d)
40
50
Tout vs Production
Linear (Tout vs Production)
Next Steps for Line Heater Systems


They work and are ready for wider use
Additional work required to quantify:
• Overall efficiency gains over fire tubes in tanks
» Can reduce purchase fuel needs even at wells with no vent gas
production
• Impacts on production of lower vent gas pressures
• Impacts on tank treating effectiveness and foaming
• Optimum fuel use strategy with varying vent gas
volumes

Equipment Price Range $13,300-$15,000
• for 120,000 BTU/hr line heaters
Basic Project Proposal for Additional Trials
(NPEL Scope)







Identification of Field Test Locations
Data Collection for Design
Development of Installation Options and Designs
Prototype Equipment Manufacture (Scott-Can)
Installation, Start-Up, and Monitoring
Post Trial Analysis and Reporting
Input to Larger Scale Implementation
Other “New Paradigms” in Methane
Venting
 “Methane 2000 Options” Project Launched this
month PTAC)
• Objective to assess all options for use of
conventional heavy oil vent gas
• Fuel displacement, Power generation, Compression
and Gathering, EOR, Conversion to CO2, Tank vent
mitigation
• As of June 9, 2000 commitments from four producers
for $15k each
• Base study to be complete by January, 2001
• Follow-up study for thermal vents later in 2000

New Options
• Applying for IRAP and IGAP support to develop new
Project Summary





It is possible to utilize low pressure vent gas for
production heating
Systems have been demonstrated for winterization
and line heating
Most systems will payout in under one year, some
in as little as 3-4 months
Other options to collect or utilize vent gas are under
study
New options are being developed and will need
producer support to develop and demonstrate
viability
Acknowledgements

Husky Oil Limited for their funding support and
vision
• Brian Watt, Ron Schmitz, Brock Blakely, Dean Lypkie
• Pumpers Kevin Josuttes and George Leer

Scott-Can Industries Ltd.
• Peter and Dave Howie

PTAC
• Eric Lloyd, Arlene Merling and the rest of the staff
Contact Information
Advanced Technology Centre
9650-20 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6N 1G1
tel: 780.450.3613
fax: 780.462.7297
email: [email protected]
web: www.newparadigm.ab.ca