9/10/2015
New Technology Application Cost Reduction while Increasing Operational Efficiency
Slide 2
The Double-Edged Sword of Technology
Petroleum: Shale Production vs. Rig Count
Cost Saving Innovations
44%
44%
More Efficient Operations Get more out of existing assets Optimize exiting production Recover more oil
Sustainable Cost Reductions Technology innovations Reduce capital project costs Reduce operating costs
Tanks Compact Separation
Technology Application - Onshore Facilities Cost Saving Opportunities
¾ New Facilities
9 CAPEX reduction
9 Separation challenges
¾ Debottlenecking Existing Infrastructure
9 Increased production or new
well tie-ins
9 Gain in incremental revenue
with residual oil recovery
9 Special solutions
9 Retrofit applications
9 Heavy oil
9 Chemical EOR
9 Downhole separation
¾ Water Reuse
9 Produced Water
9 Flowback Water
Special Separation Solutions
Oil
Water
Sand & Solids
Separator Internals
Gas
Secondary Separation
InLine Technologies
Cyclonic Separation
High Efficiency Gas Scrubbing
1
2
3
Bulk- Oil Water Separation
6
Compact cyclonic separation
• Stokes
d
dcss
gdv
PUU
18*2 �
ͻ Swirling flow Î enhanced gravity
gaG
Conventional vessel separation
Sand production • Flow line clogging • Erosion of production choke and
upstream facilities • Accumulation in separator vessels • Continuous monitoring and safety
supervision • Intervention & maintenance
Flowback and Production Sands
1 Oil
Water
Sand & Solids
Gas
Cyclonic Separation 1
Cyclonic Sand Separation – Wellhead Desander
Gravity base Cyclonic
Inlet Single/Multi phase flow + sand
Sand outlet Concentrated slurry, to accumulation vessel
Liquid outlet
Cyclonic technology proven and applied in the most demanding environments
Conventional Sand-trap
Cyclonic Sand Separation
dF
gF
Inlet
Inlet
9 Drill-out, Flowback & Production operations
9 >95% Sand removal
9 Compare conventional with cyclonic separation
9 Controlled test criteria
9 Measure/Sample solids
Application at unconventional shale
Wellhead Desander
Conventional Cyclonic
Sand volume/mass measurement
Solids removal - Wellhead Desander (10K psi)
Operator’s benefit ͻ Avoids costly repairs & throwaways to downstream
equipment due to erosion ͻ Eliminates solids carryover in water & oil streams
after separator ͻ Accelerates the move to a Productions stage ͻ Avoids operational slowdowns and increases safety
Karnes County, Eagleford TX
ͻ Desander unit is connected directly to the wellhead - sole sand separation unit ͻ Samples are constantly taken every hour, at upstream and downstream locations
of the unit to monitor its performance
Wellhead Desander Performance – Permian Lea County, Permian TX
12 9/10/2015
Before and after Desander application Wellhead Desander Performance
13 9/10/2015
ͻ Current practice of using two Sand-Traps per operation ͻ Cost savings show, removal of one Sand-Trap and use of the Desander along with the eliminated
costs it brings by efficient separation ͻ Single well, Desanding related, approximately 10 days in durations
Value provided Case 1 : Dual Sand trap Scenario Permian Basin
14 9/10/2015
Gonzales County, TX Wellhead Desander Performance – Eagleford
Gonzales County, Case History - II
Sand Separation Efficiency >99%
Bulk Oil Water Separation 2 InLine Liquid-Liquid Separation
Size reduction ~50 times
Size comparison, gravity vs. cyclonic liquid-liquid separation
Conventional gravity separator
Inline DeWaterer
ͻ Removes oil from water ͻ Compact and Mobile – “Facility on a Skid” ͻ High separation efficiency, >90% reduction
in the hydrocarbon content ͻ Proven cyclonic technology powered by
the operating flow (<50 PSI) ͻ Small footprint, easy to install; once setup,
it operates with minimal maintenance
16 9/10/2015
Production DeWaterer – Applications Production – Recover More Oil
SWD – Accommodate More Water SWD – Facility on a SKID
17 9/10/2015
Production Facility - EOR Case History - Central Texas, 110Kbbls/day
Annual Savings $2.4M
18 9/10/2015
Production/Disposal Facility Pilot Case History – Delaware Permian Basin , 4Kbbls/day
19 9/10/2015
Cost Savings - Dewaterer
*50K bbls/day Facility & $55/bbl Oil Price
Advantages
Higher oil recovery
Compact Capex and Opex Savings
No Moving Parts
No Solids Accumulation
Maintenance Free
(%)
Produced and Flowback Water Reuse Understanding the water lifecycle economics and the end use is critical to technology selection
ͻ Recover residual oil ͻ Compact mechanical
separation ͻ Significant reduction in
Bacteria ͻ Cost savings on Biocide ͻ Reduced load on
subsequent unit processes
Uinta Basin
Oil and Grease Effect on Bacteria
Total Suspended Solids
Particle Size Effect
> 1/3 Pore Throat Bridge Instantly
1/3 to 1/7 Pore Throat Deeper Invasion
<1/7 Pore Throat Non- Damaging
Courtesy : www.bakerhughes.com
ͻ Solids in oilfield water: ͻ Suspended Solids ͻ Sand, Silt, Clays, Humic Acid, Fulvic
Acid, Microorganisms ͻ Colloidal Particles ͻ Microorganism, Sand, Clays ͻ Dissolved Substances ͻ Cations, Anions, Organic Matter,
Gases
Inline Compact Desilting Technologies > 95% Solid removal (>10Microns size)
Total Suspended Solids
SPE : 165085
Cyclonic for Solids Removal
Why Cross-Link?
Low cost Ease of use High viscosity Fluid recovery
Why Treat
Interference with CXL Premature viscosity Fluid Degradation
Frac
Flu
id S
tabi
lity
Boron Levels
30 2010
2013 60
• Boron in produced water
• Concentration Range
• 10-200mg/ltr
• Difficult to remove
Paradigm Shift
Boron – A Critical Component
Removal of special constituents
Stages in the water treatment process
Boron – A Critical Component
High Efficiency : NF and RO
26
Conclusion
• New technology : Adapting will only make them more efficient and dynamic
• Near-term impact – Low hanging fruit – Immediate impact on CAPEX/OPEX
• Innovation in the sector is increasing • Risk Averse • Few early adaptors
Thanks