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