eProcess Technologies

Partial Processing – Development History – U.K. (B-CSS-009)

In 1996-1997, the eight-member joint industry project (JIP) consisting of Arco, BP, Elf, Halliburton, Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Shell Expro, and Unocal conducted parallel testing of the Gas-Liquid Auger (bulk gas removal) and two stage liquid-liquid cyclone to the Shell Thai Lan Krabu program.

The photo above shows the trial package setup at BP Wytch Farm Field.  This trial test skid is a larger scale pilot that showed the same results at scaled down version is Southeast Asia.  Three compact Gas-Liquid cylindrical cyclones were tested for comparison. The G-L Auger provided excellent compact bulk gas removal and simple operation.  The trials showed that up to 90% of the water can be removed from a high water cut stream with the use of a Pre-Separator cyclone followed by a deoiling hydrocyclone.

References:

  1. Rawlins, C.H., “Partial Processing: Produced Water Debottlenecking Unlocks Production on Offshore Thailand MOPU Platform”, paper SPE-187109-MS, presented at the 2017 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 9 – 11, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2118/187109-MS

Partial Processing – Development History – Southeast Asia (B-CSS-008)

In 1996-1997, an eight-member joint industry project (JIP) conducted various field testing of compact gas-liquid and liquid-liquid technologies for debottlenecking.  The members of the JIP included Arco, BP, Elf, Halliburton, Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Shell Expro, and Unocal

The photo above shows the trial package setup at the Shell Lan Krabu Field Thailand. Gas-Liquid Auger (bulk gas removal) and two stage Liquid-Liquid cyclone was used to characterize the operating envelopes for these technologies under various conditions.  The trials showed that up to 90% of the water can be removed from a high water cut stream with the use of a Pre-Separator cyclone followed by a deoiling hydrocyclone.

References:

  1. Rawlins, C.H., “Partial Processing:  Produced Water Debottlenecking Unlocks Production on Offshore Thailand MOPU Platform”, paper SPE-187109-MS, presented at the 2017 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 9 – 11, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2118/187109-MS

Partial Processing – Development History – Australia (B-CSS-007)

Esso performed hydrocyclone field trials dating back the early 1980’s on the Kingfish B platform and subsequent testing on the Snapper and Barracouta platforms. The success from those initial testing paved the way to the advancement and adoption of the liquid-liquid hydrocyclone compact separation systems at Esso.

The first commercial dehydrating application was installed in 1991-1992 at the Esso Longford plant in Australia.  The system removed water from condensate (from 10% to <1%) using the special liquid-liquid cyclone liners.

See photograph above showing the dehydrating liners installed.

References:

  1. Rawlins, C.H., “Partial Processing: Produced Water Debottlenecking Unlocks Production on Offshore Thailand MOPU Platform”, paper SPE-187109-MS, presented at the 2017 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 9 – 11, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2118/187109-MS
  2. Ditria, J.C., “The Separation of Solids and Liquids with Hydrocyclone Based Technology for Water Treatment and Crude Processing”, paper SPE-28815-MS, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference held in Melbourne, Australia, November 7-10, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2118/28815-MS

Partial Processing – Development History – U.S.A (B-CSS-006)

The development of technology for debottlenecking of produced water treatment systems occurred about 10 years after the liquid-liquid deoiling hydrocyclone was commercialized.  Esso installed the first L/L deoiler in the Bass Strait in 1982.

The first pilot testing of Pre-Separating (bulk oil-water) and Dehydrating (removal of water from oil Applications was in 1989 for Conoco in Grand Isle, LA.  Individual deoiler liners designed for non-traditional oil-water separation was tested.  Results from the testing paved the way to the commercialization of specialized partial processing liners for debottlenecking hydraulically constrained systems.

Photo above illustrates the size of the Pre-separator liner in comparison to the traditional liquid/liquid deoiling hydrocyclone liner.

References:

  1. Rawlins, C.H., “Partial Processing: Produced Water Debottlenecking Unlocks Production on Offshore Thailand MOPU Platform”, paper SPE-187109-MS, presented at the 2017 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 9 – 11, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2118/187109-MS

Partial Processing – Case for Compact Separation (B-CSS-005)

The purpose of a production facility is to separate well fluids into phase components and process each into salable products or dispose of in an acceptable manner.  Separation is traditionally achieved with gravity-based vessels that can be quite large and inefficient.  With increasing demand from offshore and remote environments, new technology to improve on space, weight and process performance is needed. 

Compact Separation technology does not rely on large gravity-based vessels.  They utilize enhanced physical forces (i.e. cyclonic) for separation and as a result decrease the size/quantity of equipment required to do the same job.  The main driving benefits for compact separation include:

  • Space savings
  • Weight savings
  • Motion tolerance for floating facilities
  • Reduced chemical consumption
  • Reduced instrumentation
  • Reduced environmental effects – i.e. less raw materials, less paint, less heat loss, etc.

Examples of compact separation equipment include interceptor plates, G/L cyclones, L/L cyclones, S/L cyclones, rotordynamic equipment, and flotation cells.  When evaluating the compact separation technologies available, some factors to consider include:

  • Separation performance
  • Cost and overall net benefits
  • Operation and maintenance personnel requirements
  • Flexibility to handle varying process conditions
  • Turndown capability
  • Hold-up time
  • Pressure and energy requirements
  • Velocity/Wear
  • Sparing requirements 

References:

Rawlins, C.H., “The Case for Compact Separation”, paper SPE-80994, Technology Today Series, 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/80994-JPT

 
 
white

Copyright © 2021 eProcess Technologies.