Self Lubricated Transport of Bitumen Froth from Concept to Commercial Demonstration

Transcription

1 Self Lubricated Transport of Bitumen Froth from Concept to Commercial Demonstration

2 Outline Background Technology Development Program Economic and Technical Screening of Bitumen Transfer Options Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Alternatives Commercial Demonstration Final Selection - Pipeline Design and Economics

3 Oil Sands Location Vancouver Athabasca Peace River Wabasca Edmonton Cold Lake Salt Lake City Denver San Diego Houston Calgary

4 Syncrude Canada From Oilsand Mining to Mine (Base or Remote) Synthetic Crude Production Oilsand Syncrude Sweet Blend Bitumen Extraction (Base or Remote) Primary Conversion Secondary Upgrading

5 Fort Hills Lease 5 Lease 52 Susan Lake South Disposal Area Lease 10 West Mine Lease 12 East Mine Lease 34 Centre Mine Plant Site Susan Lake South Disposal Area Muskeg River Tailings Disposal Area Lease 36 Kearl Lake HWY 63 Extension Service Corridor Lease 13 Jackpine Creek Service Corridor South Mine Fort MacKay Lease 30 Plant Site Tailings Disposal Area Service Corridor South Mine Disposal Area Lease 31 Lease 22 Aurora Mine Project Lease 31 North Mine Lease 17 Tailings Pond Plant Site Mildred Lake Site SW Sand Disposal Mildred Lake Base Mine Suncor Aurora Mine Location

6 Aurora Facilities Self Lubricating Flow TAILS OILSAND DE-AERATOR HEATER BITUMEN FROTH PIPELINE (35 KM) Froth Surge Tank Base Plant Facilities // FROTH PIPELINE Heat to 80 C TO FROTH TREATMENT PLANT Flush to tailings pond

7 Bitumen Froth An intermediate product from an oilsand extraction process Typical Composition: 60 % Bitumen 30 % Water 10 % Soilds Highly Viscous - Oil Continuous Phase

8 Insert viscosity graphs

9 Technology Development Economic and Technical Screening of Froth Transport Options Diluted Froth? Core-Annular flow? Emulsified Froth? Heated Froth? Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Options Commercial Demonstration Final Selection

10 Screening Study Incremental Supply Costs for Froth Transport Description Capital Cost ($M) Difference Operating Cost ($M/Yr) Difference Supply Cost Diff. ($/BBL) Naphtha Diluted Froth Base Base 0.00 Core Annular Flow Froth Emulsion Heated Froth

11 Technical Screening of Options Naphtha Diluted Froth Key concern is froth separability Core Annular Flow Key concerns are fouling and re-start Heated Froth Heat transfer equipment adds complexity at Aurora

12 Conclusion Economic and Technical Screening Diluted Froth - Best chance for technical success, however separability is an issue Core Annular - Best economics, but needs development for this application

13 Technology Selection Economic and Technical Screening of Froth Transport Options Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Options - Naphtha Diluted Froth Pipeloop - Core Annular Flow Pilot Commercial Demonstration Final Selection

14 Naphtha Diluted Froth Test Program Conclusions High shear or high viscosity conditions results in emulsion formation and poor froth separability Low shear pumping to avoid emulsion is feasible Addition of demulsifier prior to shearing eliminates emulsion

15 Technology Selection Economic and Technical Screening of Froth Transport Options Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Options - Naphtha Diluted Froth Pipeloop - Core Annular Flow Pilot Commercial Demonstration Final Selection

16 Key Issues Core Annular Flow Pilot Test Objectives Pipeline Fouling Ability to re-start the pipeline Objectives Investigate fouling and re-start Establish an operating envelope

17 Insert Pressure Profiles from Minn

18 University of Minnesota Results Froth pumped in core flow mode for periods of up to four days No indication of pipeline blockage Reasonable operating envelope; 0.7 to 2.5 m/s Longer shutdowns required water addition

19 Self Lubricating Flow Insights Froth is self-lubricating Fouling is inhibited by the liberated water A minimum velocity of 0.7 m/s is required

20 Self Lubricating Flow Insights A proposed mechanism : Froth is unstable at high shear rates Dispersed water droplets coalesce Clay particles inhibit fouling : Powdering the dough Clay particles act like surfactants

21 Technology Selection Economic and Technical Screening of Froth Transport Options Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Options Final Selection - Naphtha Diluted Froth Pipeloop - Self Lubricating Flow Pilot Commercial Demonstration

22 Self Lubricating Flow Commercial Scale Test Objectives Establish SLF given shear regime at large diameter Re-start characteristics at large diameter Gain confidence in our ability to commercialize

23 Insert PFD & NFL photos

24 Self Lubricated Flow Commercial Scale Demonstration Froth Tank M Mixing Pump M Froth Pump ( usgpm) 24 " by 1 km pipeline loop Window Water Supply M High Pressure Water pump Dump Tank

25 Preliminary Results from Commercial Scale Tests Successfully established lubricated flow in 24 by 1 km pipeline Successful use of a centrifugal pump Pipeline shutdowns from 1 minute to 6 hours tested Successful re-starts - no high pressure water required

26 Technology Selection Economic and Technical Screening of Froth Transport Options Pilot Work to Explore the Most Attractive Options Commercial Demonstration Final Selection

27 Final Selection Pipeline Design & Economics Aurora Train 1, 35 MMBBLS/Yr for 2001 Aurora Train 2, 80 MMBBLS/Yr (Total) for 2005 Design optimized by minimizing Net Present Cost (NPC) versus pipeline diameter. (NPC captures pipeline costs, pump and motor costs, and operating costs). Minimum velocity criteria is a key economic driver Self Lubricating Flow has an NPC that is $ 55 M lower then Naphtha Diluted Froth

28 Final Selection (cont d) Self Lubricating Flow selected for Aurora Pipeline Project. Bases is the large Net Present Cost advantage, and minimal risk based on commercial scale pilot results

29 Future Work Can critical velocity for lubrication be expressed usefully as critical stress? What is the thickness of the lubricating water and how does it depend on system parameters? How will re-start in a 35 km pipeline differ from a 1 km pipeline?

30 Acknowledgments Co-Authors Runyan Bai Dan Joseph Peter Stapleton Ken Sury University of Minnesota University of Minnesota Syncrude Canada Ltd. Syncrude Canada Ltd.