Field GHG Reduction Projects Dehydration Optimization. February 10, 2016

Transcription

1 Field GHG Reduction Projects Dehydration Optimization 1

2 Dehydration Optimization Video 2

3 Overview CPC currently has approximately 80 operating dehydration facilities Industry has operating dehydration facilities (Western Canada) Dehydration facilities represent a significant opportunity for GHG reduction, as most are over-circulating glycol and/or using stripping gas unnecessarily Beyond operational changes, there are many potential optimization strategies 3

4 Technology Description Initial Project Objective: Replace gas-assisted circulation pumps with electric pumps (5 locations) Reality: Significant equipment modifications required, costs were found to be higher than expected and only one electrification project was completed. Final Project Outcome Six different technologies trialed Most successful for our fleet: Glycol Pump Reductions Still Overheads Engine SlipStream 4

5 James Holoboff Process Ecology James is a partner and a Senior Project Manager with Process Ecology. He leads the Engineering Services practice and provides software development support for the company s Emissions Management Systems. He has also been involved with dehydration facility regulatory reporting and optimization in Western Canada since James holds a BSc and an MSc degree from the University of Calgary. 5

6 Technology Description 1. Glycol Pump Electrification 2. Glycol Pump Reduction 3. Still overhead from existing condenser to regen burner 4. Still overhead to vendor heat exchanger & regen burner 5. Slipstream - dehydrator vent gas capture GHG GHG GHG 6. Flash Tank Tie-In 6

7 Installed Technologies Glycol Pump Electrification Replace existing energy exchange pump with electric pump Significant reduction in GHGs; venting of energy exchange gas eliminated Additional modifications (contactor level control, instrumentation) may be needed high costs Still overhead to Jatco heat exchanger / LP burner Hydrocarbons and water vapour leaving the glycol reboiler stack are routed to the Jatco engineered heat exchanger / condensing system. Liquids condensed and recovered. Uncondensed vapours routed through separation and filtering media to secondary burner (in this case, Eclipse) Still overhead to LP burner (Kenilworth) Gas from the glycol reboiler stack is sent to a condenser to remove free liquids Overhead gas piped to a glycol reboiler burner system as primary source of fuel For Kenilworth there must be an existing condensing tank. Important to match amount of gas from process with required burner gas Flash tank tie-in A glycol flash tank is installed to recover light hydrocarbons Flash gases can then be routed to the fuel gas system or flare 7

8 Installed Technologies: Slipstream H2O BTEX Methane $$ Gas from still overheads tank vented to atmosphere. Dry Gas Lean Glycol Tank Dehy Still Column Overheads (Waste Gas) Wet Gas High Pressure Glycol/Gas Contactor Rich Glycol Low Pressure Glycol Regeneration System Picture from Waste to Wealth, presented by Sean Hiebert (ConocoPhillips) at PTAC Air Emissions Forum,

9 Installed Technologies: Slipstream Gas from still overheads tank routed to compressor engine, and used as fuel gas! Picture from Waste to Wealth, presented by Sean Hiebert (ConocoPhillips) at PTAC Air Emissions Forum,

10 Installed Technologies: Slipstream 10

11 Installed Technologies: Glycol Pump/Circulation Reduction Most dehydration facilities are over-circulating In some cases, circulation rate can be reduced with existing pump; in others, pump replacement is needed Need to review potential issues with low rates (sales gas spec, column turndown) GHG benefit is greater for energy exchange pumps Picture from 11

12 Technology Scorecard & Realizing the Win-Win SAID DID Installations 5 13 GHG Reduction [tco2e/yr] Cost Abatement [$/tco2e] $19 $5 Original objective: reduce GHG emissions in 5 dehydration facilities by replacing dehydrator energy exchange glycol circulation pumps with electric pumps. Reality: Costs were found to be higher than expected and only one electrification project was completed. Final Outcome: reduced GHG emissions in 13 dehydration facilities via five technologies Numbers on this slide exclude Slipstream Field execution experience Total $513k for all installations Costs ranging from $8,000 for pump reductions to $196,000 for Heat exchanger/burner installation Environmental benefits Exceeded GHG emission reduction Reduced BTEX emissions Fuel gas reduction of 1520 e3m3/year (4 e3m3/d) for all projects * * *Based on 20 year project life* 12

13 Economics: Project Budget and Cost Savings Cost Abatement ($/tco2e) Jatco/burner Slipstream - vent gas capture Dehy glycol pump electrification Kenilworth burner Flash tank tie-in Kimray pump reduction Installations GHG Reduction [tco2e/yr] Cost Abatement [$/tco2e] $13 $4 $42 $6 $9 $1 Slipstream Cost Abatement does not include GHG Credits GHG Reduction per installation (for Kimray pump reduction, tco2e/year) $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Jatco/burner Slipstream - vent gas capture Dehy glycol pump electrification Kenilworth burner Flash tank tie-in Kimray pump reduction 13

14 Economics: Payback There is a protocol for Slipstream installations, and GHG Credits were pursued for the Slipstream installation 14

15 Lessons Learned: Slipstream Vent Gas Capture This technology implementation was an OVERWHELMING success Approximately 20% of total engine fuel is dehy waste gas!!! Dehy optimization no longer as critical (all waste captured/utilized) Overall site emission reductions, along with odor reduction >1 year runtime without major issues Offset credits successfully obtained Currently working with the AER, to have this technology tested and recognized as an acceptable Benzene destruction technology Appears to be a potential viable Benzene abatement technology 15

16 Lessons Learned: Glycol Pump/Circulation Reduction 16

17 Lessons Learned: Glycol Pump/Circulation Reduction Pump rate reduction can be employed at facilities that are over-circulating glycol majority of dehydration facilities Emissions are linearly proportional to glycol rate; at high circulation rates there is no additional dehydration benefit Depending on the pump characteristics: in some cases, the circulation rate can be turned down with existing pump In others, pump replacement would be needed Consider operating conditions throughout the year. Ensure that the contactor tower performs adequately at low rates. For CPC no reportable problems in contactor hydraulics Greater turndown for trayed vs. packed towers Installation costs can be reduced by replacing one pump, keeping the larger one as a spare 17

18 Lessons Learned: Other opportunities for reduction in Dehy Facilities Stripping Gas Elimination Circulation Rate Reduction Pump Replacement Flash Tank Tie-In / Installation SlipStream (Still Vent Vapour Recovery to Engine) Still Vent Vapour Recovery to Burner VRU Flare/Incinerator Gas Driven Pump to Electric Pump Bigger GHG reduction opportunity for units with: Energy Exchange Pumps Stripping Gas Still Gas Vented 18

19 Conclusions Of the technologies reviewed, the most cost-efficient GHG reduction opportunity for potential widespread adoption in industry is the Glycol Pump/Circulation Reduction. The Slipstream technology allows for capture/utilization of still vent overheads and is a good option for emissions reduction when an engine is adjacent and glycol circulation reduction is not possible. Benefits of Dehydration Optimization: GHG Reduction BTEX Reduction Fuel Gas Reduction Site Odor Improvements Corporate Sustainability 19

20 Field GHG Reduction Projects Waste Heat Recovery 20

21 Waste Heat Recovery Video 21

22 Opportunity Gas compressors are widely used in the Canadian Upstream oil and gas (UOG) sector Compressors are mainly driven using natural gas powered reciprocating engines (and often very large: ~1500HP average) Large Population = Large Waste Heat Opportunity CPC operates approximately 775 engines (>400,000 HP) Canadian industry total is approximately 10,000 15,000 engines Gas In (Low Pressure) Waste Heat - Glycol Cooling System - Exhaust Gas Gas Out (High Pressure) 22

23 Opportunity Approximately 2/3 of fuel energy is rejected as waste heat!!! Very little heat recovery installed We want to capture/use this!!! Waste energy content of 2/3 of 600 MMscfd = 7,000 MegaWatts!!!! 23

24 Challenge Lots of variation in engine make/models 30 HP 3500 HP (1500 HP being the most common engine in our fleet) Canadian UOG use similar equipment (packaged/installed/operated) Each facility has a different need for thermal energy Thermal fluid loops (process heating, utility heating, heat tracing) Electricity (remote, grid-displacement) Waste Heat Recovery Schemes can be divided into sub-types: Waste Heat to Process Large-scale Small-scale Waste heat to Power Large-scale Small-scale Our Challenge Can we economically recover/utilize waste heat within our operations? **Waste heat utilization reduces GHG emissions, by displacing fuel consumption (fire heater) or grid electrical consumption. 24

25 Field GHG Reduction Projects Waste Heat to Process 25

26 Waste Heat to Process Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities - Waste Heat Sources and Uses Exhaust Temperature from Engines C Plant Heat Uses Hot Oil for process heat Pressurized Glycol for process heat Utility Glycol for building heat/heat tracing Other process streams - glycol regeneration, mol sieve regeneration,... Typical Temperatures and Pressures Required C, Atmospheric pressure C, kpag pressure ~100 C, Atmospheric pressure C, Process Operating pressures Pumpjack Engine Heat Trace (small-scale) Compressor Engine Exhaust to Glycol Heat Medium (large-scale) 26

27 Technology Scorecard Small-scale Waste Heat Recovery Pumpjack Engine Glycol used as Surface Piping Heat Trace Large-scale Waste Heat Recovery Engine exhaust gas to Hot Oil/Glycol Thermal Fluid Loops Conventional technology (shell and tube) Unconventional Technology (heat pipes) Turbine exhaust gas to Amine Regeneration unit operation (not part of project) SAID DID Installations 14 7 GHG Reduction [tco2e/yr] 11,079 2,157 Cost Abatement [$/tco2e] $19.62 $

28 Learnings Waste heat recovery/utilization is not easy! (especially on a retrofit) Evaluate waste heat source vs. sink carefully GHG reduction potential WHR GHG Reduction Potential <<< Vented Methane Reduction Potential 25x GWP of vented methane vs CO2 Challenges with new WHR Technology (Heat Pipe Exchangers) Installation/operating practices Education Approvals (Pressure Equipment) Off-shore Technology (limited local knowledge-base) Asset health/life evaluation (big picture) 28

29 Field GHG Reduction Projects Waste Heat to Power (WHtP) 29

30 Technology Description Waste Heat to Power via Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is well proven and sometimes economic at large-scale. Most applications are on large-scale, high-grade waste heat sources Our Challenge Generate power from a small-scale lower-grade waste heat source economically. CPC s Waste Heat to Power Pilot Objectives/Benefits: Proof of Concept (can it be done?) Emission Reductions (utilization of waste heat generated power vs. grid power: coal) Grid Consumption Reduction (LOE Reduction, $$$) Proving-out off the shelf technology (small-scale) Creating an economic and repeatable small-scale WHtP solution (without subsidization) 30

31 Our Approach Reduce Complexity Working Fluid (WF) Condenser: Water-cooled vs. air-cooled WF Evaporator: Thermal fluid to evaporator vs. direct EGHX evaporator Expander: Turbine vs. Roto-star PD Rotor vs. Twin-screw Engine Waste Heat Source: Multiple Engines vs. Single Engine Thermal Fluid Circulation Systems: Thermal Oil & Glycol vs. Glycol Challenge Vendors Product Pricing: Waste Heat Exchanger Heat Pipe vs. Shell & Tube Product Modification to Fit Application (Improve Capital Efficiency) Risk Reduction Focus only on proven/commercial ORC options Off the Shelf Performance Guarantees? 31

32 Pilot Design Single-engine installation (Waukesha L7042GL, ~1100kW/~1500HP) Elevated engine jacket water w/ exhaust gas temperature boost 1 thermal fluid loop engine jacket water (glycol) 2 - ElectraTherm 50-75kW Green Machine ORC skids 2 - Guntner air-cooled condensers Containerization (robust mobility) 20 Shipping Container Platform Aprovis conventional shell/tube exhaust gas heat exchanger w/ built-in bypass Honeywell R245fa refrigerant Non-flammable, Non-toxic, Non-ozone Depleting Expected Average Output: 108kW Gross, 91kW Net 32

33 Small-scale ORC Pilot PFD 33

34 Project Major Equipment Aprovis EGHX with Integrated Bypass - Germany Electratherm Green Machine ORC USA Guntner Air-cooled Refrigerant Condenser - Mexico 34

35 Project Photos COP s First Reciprocating Engine ORC!!!! ElectraTherm s first ORC in Canada! SAID DID Installations 1 1 GHG Reduction [tco2e/yr] 2, Cost Abatement [$/tco2e] $26.35 $

36 Learnings Canadian Requirements: CRN/ABSA Refabricating pipe spools in shop/registering pressure vessels CSA Electrical Relocating panels & rewiring skids in field Control System Complexity (flow-splitting EJW to 2 ORC Skids) Candidate Location Uniqueness MCC Location, Vintage, Expandability Engine Suitability (Start System, Health, Heating, etc.) Site Electrical Stability Exhaust Gas Exchanger Backfire Pressure Protection Remote Communications (IT, Firewalls, etc.) Cold Canadian Climates (O2 Sensor) Use of two ORC modules gave rise to a difficult control scheme to properly balance loads Older model engine with health issues resulted in unanticipated mishaps Off shore components required recertification as pressure vessels Site layout and vintage was not fully compatible with current designs and technology 36

37 PANEL DISCUSSIONS 37