EOR CHEMICALS CURRENT STATUS

Transcription

1 EOR CHEMICALS CURRENT STATUS Marc Gruenenfelder SNF FLOERGER OG21 Work Shop for Enhanced Recovery February 8, 2007

2 TOPICS Global Activity Today Types of Chemicals Track Records - Failures Environmental Issues Volumes Required and Logistics Global Production of Chemicals

3 GLOBAL ACTIVITY TODAY Chemical Flooding Project Locations Driscoll Creek Enigma West Kiehl Cambridge Tanner Ranch Adena Sho-Vel Tum ASP AP Polymer David Etzikom Cessford Thompson Cr. Rapdan Karamay XingLong Tai Daqing Daqing Gudao Gudong Gudong Shuanghe Wardlaw La Salina Lagomar CantodoAmaro Carmopolis Sanand Buracica (Source: SURTEK)

4 CHEMICAL PROCESSES for EOR Polymer SP Surfactant/Polymer ASP (Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer) MP (Micellar-Polymer) Water/Gas Shut-off Gels Drag Reducer

5 POLYMER w o o w o o w w o w k k k k M μ μ μ μ λ λ = = = Polymer is the mobility control fluid, used by itself or with surfactant or alkaline/surfactant Polyacrylamide powder most efficient form Current products stable up to 85 C

6 POLYMER FLOODING Accelerates oil production Incremental oil production of 5-10% of OOIP mixing zone drive water residual oil polymer slug water oil Polymer Flood

7 SP: SURFACTANT FLOODING Mobilizes residual oil, recovery of 10 15% of OOIP Surfactant is 50% active liquid, requires storage and mixing temperature control Variations Surfactant-Polymer Flood (SP) Low Tension Polymer Flood (LTPF) mixing zone drive water Surfactant/polymer slug residual oil Surfactant Flood water oil

8 ASP: ALKALI-SURFACTANT- POLYMER FLOODING Alkaline agent reduces adsorption of surfactant, lowers the concentration of surfactant required by >50% Mobilizes residual oil, recovery of 10 15% of OOIP Alkaline used is liquid (50% active) sodium hydroxide or powder soda ash or others drive water polymer Surf alkali water oil bank oil ASP Flood

9 REASONS FOR FAILURE Chemical floods in the US during the 1980s were subsidized by oil price controls and many were done with lack of concern for reservoir parameters, many were economic success and technical failures Polymer and surfactants available were not as good as they are today Lack of EOR mentality/commitment by field personnel Chemical systems not proven in the laboratory first Chemical slug too small

10 APPROXIMATE COST of CHEMICALS (Not Including Shipping And Taxes) Chemical Form Approximate Cost ($/lb active) Concentration Used in Field (ppm, active) Cost/bbl of Slug Injected ($/bbl) Polymer powder Surfactant used for ASP Surfactant used for SP liquid (50% active) liquid (50% active) , Caustic liquid (50% active).40 10, Soda Ash powder.20 10, Micellar Co-surfactant liquid , Surfactant liquid ,

11 COST of CHEMICAL SLUGS Polymer Flood -- $.57/bbl Surfactant Polymer (SP) -- $5.98/bbl Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) -- $3.63/bbl (with caustic) Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) -- $2.91/bbl (with soda ash) Micellar (Surfactant/Co-surfactant) -- $16.24bbl

12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION POLYACRYLAMIDE POLYMERS Very High Molecular Weight (10-25 million Dalton) Totally water soluble (hydrophilic) Insoluble in solvents (ipophobic) Odorless Non-volatile

13 CHEMICAL STRUCTURE of POLYACRYLAMIDE ANIONIC AND NON -IONIC POLYACRYLAMIDES Copolymers of acrylamide and acrylic acid n CH 2 CH + m CH 2 CH + NaOH CH 2 CH CH 2 CH C O C O C O C O NH 2 OH NH 2 n O - Na + m Acrylamide Acrylic acid Caustic soda Anionic polyacrylamide Remark : with m = 0, the polyacrylamide is non-ionic

14 REGULATORY PROFILE Not classified as hazardous to health or the environment in the European Community. Not classified under the future Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS). Not concerned by REACH. Approved worldwide for the treatment of drinking water and many direct and indirect food contact applications.

15 NORWEGIAN LEGISLATION Only in Norway, polyacrylamide with >100 ppm of residual acrylamide monomer is labeled for cancer risk (Toxic with R45 risk phrase). SNF can supply polymer for Norwegian applications with <100 ppm residual acrylamide.

16 OSPAR CRITERIA Under the OSPAR Convention chemicals used in the North Sea require a Harmonized Offshore Chemical Notification Format (HOCNF), which requires the following data: Mammalian Toxicity Aquatic Toxicity Partitioning and Bioaccumulating Potential Taint Biodegradability

17 MAMMALIAN TOXICITY Anionic polyacrylamide is not considered toxic by any exposure route. Tests on animals and humans show: It is not toxic by ingestions, skin contact or inhalation. It is not irritating or sensitizing to skin. It is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. The high MW excludes uptake across membranes.

18 AQUATIC TOXICITY The full OSPAR data set consists of the following: Testing on fish, crustatea and algae. Testing on a sediment reworker species for sinkers, partitioning & bioaccumulating substances, and adsorbable substances. RESULTS for POLYACRYLAMIDE Crustacean Fish Algae Sediment Reworker

19 BIODEGRADABILITY Biodegradation in the marine environment Substances with <20% biodegradation in 28 days are considered persistent. Biodegradation of anionic polyacrylamide is <20% in 28 days using standard test procedures.

20 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE for POLYACRYLAMIDE Mammalian Toxicity Aquatic Toxicity Partitioning/Bioaccumulation Taint Biodegradability

21 SOURCES of POTENTIAL POLYMER CONTAMINATION in the ENVIRONMENT Polymer exists in several forms during it s use for offshore flooding, each could have it s own way of getting into the environment. Storage at base warehouse Transport from base to platform Storage on the platform Pre-injection mixing and hydration Produced fluids

22 FORMS of POLYMER WITH POTENTIAL of ENTERING ENVIRONMENT Bulk powder spill during transport to or during storage on platform Liquid concentrate during hydration on platform Produced fluid long term production of low concentration degraded polymer

23 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY STILL REQUIRED Modification of polymer to obtain more than 20% biodegradation in 28 days in sea water. Identification of marine bacteria capable of degrading polymer even over lengthy periods i.e., to show ultimate biodegradation. Use of physical treatment to degrade polymer in produced fluids to render it biodegradable. Further risk assessment to demonstrate that the negligible release of polymer in EOR has no impact on the marine environment.

24 CHEMICAL VOLUMES REQUIRED Best results from chemical flooding are obtained with slug volume of 30 50% of pore volume. In general terms this could require 5 years of chemical slug injection followed by water flooding.

25 LOGISTICS Constant movement of chemicals throughout the supply chain New equipment available to facilitate mixing powder polymer in remote locations Requires investment in bulk shipping and handling equipment, possibly a dedicated supply boat Indoor mixing area and small laboratory needed on platform Platform storage for thousands of tons of chemicals

26 POLYMER MIXING EQUIPMENT for LARGE SCALE APPLICATION

27 POLYMER LOGISTICS Polymer Rate/day vs. Injection Rate Polymer Use (MT/d ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Injection Rate (m3)

28 POLYMER LOGISTICS Polymer Injection Rate/day vs. Number of Shipping Containers/day ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Polymer Injection Rate (m3/day)

29 POLYMER LOGISTICS Polymer Injection Rate/day vs. Storage Volume (powder) Required for 30 Day Supply ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Injection Rate (m3)

30 SURFACTANT LOGISITICS Surfactant Rate/day vs. Injection Rate Surfactant Use (MT/d ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Injection Rate (m3)

31 SURFACTANT LOGISITICS Surfactant Injection Rate/day vs. Number of Shipping Containers/day Number of Contain per Day ,000 30,000 50, ,000 Surfactant Injection Rate (m3/day)

32 SURFACTANT LOGISITICS Surfactant Injection Rate/day vs. Storage Volume (liquid) Required for 30 Day Supply Surfactant Storage (M ,000 30,000 50, ,000 Injection Rate (m3)

33 POLYMER/SURFACTANT LOGISTICS Polymer/Surfactant Injection Rate/day vs. Polymer and Surfactant (active) Used per Day Polymer/Surfactant use (MT/day) ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Poly mer/surf actant Injection Rate (m3/day )

34 POLYMER/SURFACTANT LOGISTICS Polymer/Surfactant Injection Rate/day vs. Number of Shipping Containers/day ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Polymer/Surfactant Injection Rate (m3/day)

35 POLYMER/SURFACTANT LOGISTICS Polymer/Surfactant Injection Rate/day vs. Storage Volume (pow der + liquid) Required for 30 Day Supply Polymer/Surfactant Storage (MT/day) ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 P o lym e r/s urfa c ta nt Inje c tio n R a te (m 3/da y)

36 SIZE OF POLYMER PLANT CAPACITY REQUIRED Size of Polymer Plant Capacity Required vs. Injection Rate ,750 Size of Polymer Plant (MT/y ,475 10,950 16,425 21,900 27,375 41, ,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Polymer Injection Rate (m3/day)

37 SIZE OF SURFACTANT PLANT CAPACITY REQUIRED (ACTIVE) Size ofsurfactant Plant Capacity Required vs. Injection Rate Size of Surfactant Plant (MT/ , , , , ,500 73,000 36,500 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 75, ,000 Surfactant Injection Rate (m3/day)

38 GLOBAL PRODUCTION of POLYMER

39 CURRENT WORLD SUPPLY OF POLYACRYLAMIDE Zone Market Size (1000 MT) NAFTA 259 Europe 154 Asia 110 Other 28 World 551

40 HURDLES Downhole chokes in subsea completions can shear polymer slug Unproven in fields with large well spacing Specialized injection pumps required, ideally one pump for each well so injection rates can be controlled Large CAPEX required