California Dreamin. on such a winter s day. The Mommas and the Papas

Transcription

1 Stuart M. Heisler, P.E. Senior Technical Director PARSONS Bakersfield, California Michael Dejak, P. Eng. VP Business Development Eco-Tec Inc. Calgary, Alberta Presentation for Canadian Heavy Oil Association Conference, Calgary, November 3, 2015

2 California Dreamin. on such a winter s day. The Mommas and the Papas

3 Heavy Oil in California Billions of barrels of heavy oil reserves (4.5 API 13 API in California Steam Injection started in 1964 Billions of barrels of heavy oil have been produced in 50 years Operators found that the least expensive method for generating steam is by using OTSGs with softened water Current Steam Injection is ~1.5 MM BBL/Day Current EOR production is ~400 M BBL/day Steam-flood SOR ~ 3-5 Cyclic Steam Frac SOR ~ 5-12

4 Water and Steam in California Produced water is almost exclusively used for steam generator feed-water since the typical production water cut is 90% Typical Produced Water Quality ,000 ppm TDS ppm Hardness as CaCO ppm Silica Usually, all of the vapor and liquid is injected downhole In some cases, only vapor is injected, the liquid is used to preheat feed-water and then disposed

5 Water and Steam in California All of the water used for steam generation is being softened with SAC/SAC or SAC/WAC softeners no Lime Softening, no Evaporators Older Steam Generators are 62.5 MMBTU/HR single pass running at 65% to 80% Quality Newer Steam Generators are 85 MMBTU/HR dual pass running at 65% to 80% Quality ANSI 900 Generators run 68 BAR, ANSI 1500 run 100 BAR, ANSI 2500 run at 135 BAR

6 Typical Process Scheme - California Water: 135,000 BPD (21460 M3/D) Oil: 15,000BPD (2385 M3/D) 65-80% Steam and water Water 75,000 BPD (11,924M3/D) Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters SAC/WAC 60,000 BPD (9540M3/D) Steam Gen 100 BPD (16 M3/D) 69,900 BPD (11,112 M3/D) 5,000 BPD (795 M3/D) Disposal Wells

7 Standard Water Treatment Equipment Horizontal Nutshell Filters SAC/WAC Softeners

8 Steam Generator Fouling We see very little steam generator fouling only after water softening upsets Steam generators are pigged every 1 3 years California Resources Corporation (OXY) reported only 2 steam generators with boiler tube failures in 8 years with a total of 44 Steam Generators There are no Lime Softeners operating to make soft water for steam generation in California

9 Advanced Water Treatment Equipment Trend is for increased production from zones with high TDS ( mg/l) and high hardness ( mg/l as CaCO3) An advanced filter and softener design has been introduced and used at 10 sites over the past 5 years Key benefits realized are: Reduced OPEX Salt consumption reduced by 50% compared with traditional systems and elimination of HCl and NaOH for WAC regeneration. Reduced CAPEX Integrated construction for minimal site work, elimination of chemicals handling Spectrum Filters Dual Media (Nutshell and Ultra Fine Media) (2 X 30,000 BPD / 4770 M3/D)skids) Integrated packed bed SAC/WAC softeners using brine-only counter-current regeneration (30,000 BPD / 4770 M3/D net skid shown)

10 Case History Requirement: 60,000 BPD (9540 M3/D) treated produced water for steam generator feed to replace existing system (traditional SAC and chemically regenerated WAC) for OPEX reduction. Feed Water: TDS: ,000 TDS Hardness: mg/l as CaCO3 Silica: 180 mg/l

11 Results: Case History System commissioned 20 months after order placement. Achieved full rated capacity. Treated Water Quality: Hardness < 0.1 mg/l as CaCO3 OPEX: 30% reduction in salt consumption (8,500 MTPY) 100% elimination of HCl and NaOH consumption Reduced operator attention required CAPEX OPEX savings justified the system CAPEX to replace an existing 5 yr old system with a 15% IRR.

12 Typical Process Scheme Canadian Oil Sands (HLS) Water: 45,150 BPD (7178 M3/D) Oil: 15,000 BPD (2385 M3/D) 80% Steam 52,500 BPD (8347 M3/D) Retention 7350 BPD (1170 M3/D) Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) Hot Lime Softener Filters SAC/ WAC Steam Gen 20% Blowdown 100 BPD (16M3/D) Makeup Water 50% BD Recycle 15,215 BPD (2419 M3/D) 1000 BPD (159 M3/D) 6865 BPD (1090M3/D)

13 Typical Process Scheme Canadian Oil Sands (Evaporator) Water: 45,150 BPD (7178 M3/D) Oil: 15,000 BPD (2385 M3/D) 100 % Steam 52,500 BPD (8347 M3/D) Retention 7350 BPD (1168 M3/D) Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) SAC Evaporator Steam Gen 100 BPD (16 M3/D) Makeup Water 11,000 BPD 1000 BPD (1749 M3/D) (159 M3/D) 5% Blowdown 2760 BPD (439 M3/D)

14 What if..the California water treatment experience were applied in Western Canada?

15 and you could go from this Water: 45,150 BPD Oil: 15,000 BPD 80% Steam 52,500 BPD Retention 7350 BPD Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) Hot Lime Softener Filters SAC/ WAC Steam Gen 20% Blowdown 100 BPD Makeup Water 50% BD Recycle 15,215 BPD 1000 BPD 6865 BPD

16 to this Retention 7350 BPD Water: 45,150 BPD Oil: 15,000 BPD 80% Steam 52,500 BPD Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) SAC/ WAC Steam Gen 20% Blowdown 100 BPD Makeup Water Flash distillate 50% BD Recycle 15,215 BPD 1000 BPD 6865 BPD

17 Proposed Process Scheme Canadian Oil Sands (ZLS) Water: 45,150 BPD Oil: 15,000 BPD 80% Steam 52,500 BPD Retention 7350 BPD Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) SAC/ WAC Steam Gen 20% Blowdown 100 BPD Makeup Water Flash distillate 50% BD Recycle 15,215 BPD 1000 BPD 6865 BPD

18 Proposed Process Scheme Canadian Oil Sands (ZLS high efficiency) Water: 45,150 BPD (7178 M3/D) Oil: 15,000 BPD (2385 M3/D) 90% Steam 52,500 BPD (8347 M3/D) Retention 7350 BPD (1168 M3/D) Oil Emulsion Treating IGF Filters (ORF) SAC/ WAC Steam Gen 10% Blowdown 100 BPD (16 M3/D) Makeup Water 9910 BPD (1576 M3/D) 1000 BPD (159M3/D) 75% BD Recycle Blowdown Treatment 1460 BPD (232 M3/D)

19 Proposed Water Treating for SAGD Use SAC/WAC softeners and OTSGS to make 80-90% Quality Steam for the least expensive Capex and Opex Dispose of the SAC/WAC Regen (1-5% of total water) Separate the steam blowdown, preheat the generator feed-water, then treat the High TDS, High Silica, Low Hardness water in an evaporator. Dispose of the evaporator blowdown (25% of evaporator inlet, 5% of total water) Minimizing evaporator use minimizes total GHG emissions

20 Potential Benefits CAPEX reduction TIC CAPEX estimate* for 60,000 BPD (9540 M3/day) boiler feed water capacity systems (CDN $ millions) Evaporator HLS/SAC/WAC SAC/WAC * All systems include skim tank, DGF, ORF

21 Potential Benefits CAPEX reduction OPEX reduction Compared with HLS/IX expected to be in the range of $500K to $3000K/yr for 60,000 BPD (9540 M3/day) depending on water chemistry, balance, waste considerations Operability less equipment = simpler system =easier to operate Directive 81 compliance can be achieved Waste disposal various configurations possible to optimize depending on disposal options GHG emissions to be determined but less than evaporation and expected to be less than HLS/IX

22 Why not? The concern over silica scaling of the OTSG

23 California experience 1. Scale is not silica but silicates of multivalent cations (Ca, Mg, Fe, ) Silica = SiO 2 Calcium Silicate = Ca 2 SiO 4 Magnesium Silicate = Mg 2 SiO 4 Iron Silicate = Fe 2 SiO 4 This is also true in Western Canada

24 California experience 2. Principle of scale control: Keep treated water hardness consistently low to eliminate formation of silicates (ideally < 0.1 mg/l as CaCO3) This is supported in theory scale prediction simulations (e.g. OLI) consistently predict very little scale formation even with high (i.e. 300 mg/l Si) when multivalent cations (i.e. hardness) are low Without a lime softener, there is never any release of fine silicate particles that can pass through to the OTSG or that can foul and impede ion exchange softener performance

25 Conclusion Application of lessons learned from the California experience Potential for significant reduction in CAPEX and OPEX in water treatment systems for SAGD operations from ZLS zero lime softening Advanced water treatment systems Improved operability from simplified systems Potential for economical AER Dir 81 compliance, reduced waste disposal and reduced GHGs

26 Thank You Questions???? Stuart M. Heisler, P.E. PARSONS Michael Dejak, P.Eng. Eco-Tec Inc.