Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Abstract Subsea cooling in oil and gas production might seem to be opposite to the usual flow assurance challenge, maintaining a high enough flowing temperature of the produced stream in order to ensure problem free transport of the crude from well to the host. During FEED and detailed design, particular focus is aimed at maintaining a required temperature with insulation and even electrical heating are employed in order to achieve this. Hydrate formation, wax and asphaltene deposits are challenges that are connected with too low temperature, and considerable effort is spent in quantifying acceptable temperature, and cool down times of subsea equipment. So one might ask why and where is the need for subsea cooling? It turns out that there are situations where the well fluids are very warm and reduction in the temperature is required for profitable development of a field. For example, where an expensive flow line material would render the installation too costly, a reduction in temperature might make the investment evaluations look attractive, or where heat is generated subsea by for instance a subsea gas compressor. The temperature greatly affects the corrosion rate, and by changing the temperature, chemical dosage can be optimized, which further strengthens the financial analysis of a field development. This paper focuses on active subsea coolers, i.e. subsea cooling systems that are equipped with adjustable means, and attempts to analyze and benchmark four different subsea cooler types using a generic wet gas production case. A recent development involving a sea current controlled active cooler is introduced and compared with three other active cooler types and how they operate with a given set of operation and turndown conditions are presented. A comparison of weight, size, auxillary equipment and required topside scope is also included.
- Europe > Norway > Norwegian Sea > Halten Terrace > Block 6507/11 > Åsgard Field > Åre Formation (0.89)
- Europe > Norway > Norwegian Sea > Halten Terrace > Block 6507/11 > Åsgard Field > Tofte Formation (0.89)
- Europe > Norway > Norwegian Sea > Halten Terrace > Block 6507/11 > Åsgard Field > Tilje Formation (0.89)
- (44 more...)
Abstract The Kipper gas field (~0.7 Tcf gross) in the Gippsland Basin, Australia is being developed by subsidiaries of ExxonMobil (32.5% & Operator), BHP Billiton (32.5%) and Santos (35%) utilising a subsea well and pipeline tieback. The facilities design required close attention to the process, materials and corrosion design challenges associated with handling water-saturated raw gas streams containing up to 12% CO2 and low levels of H2S. These challenges have been met through an integrated approach to address top of line corrosion (TOLC) risks. A Corrosion Resistant Alloy (CRA) Subsea Cooler was developed by leveraging proprietary tools and local industry experience. The Subsea Cooler is designed to reduce the raw gas temperature and condense bulk water vapour, reducing the TOLC potential before entry to the Carbon Steel (CS) pipeline. This enables use of inhibited CS for the 18 km Kipper subsea tie-back, minimising use of CRA and overall cost. This hybrid solution offers another option for increasingly complex flow assurance challenges to support Subsea developments in the face of increasing materials cost pressures. The 350mm diameter pipeline is configured in a piggable loop configuration for inspection and batch pigging to support corrosion control and monitoring. The configuration also enhances operability over the life of the depletion drive reservoir, while providing hydraulic capacity equivalent to a single 450mm diameter line. This design addresses the challenges of providing robust corrosion control while minimising the use of expensive CRA materials. Challenges encountered included: •Maturity of TOLC theoretical models in presence of H2S •Limited industry capability for testing effectiveness of inhibited TOLC systems •Industry accepted materials selection parameters •Non-standard heat transfer application
- Production and Well Operations > Production Chemistry, Metallurgy and Biology > Corrosion inhibition and management (including H2S and CO2) (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers > Materials and corrosion (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Offshore Facilities and Subsea Systems (1.00)
Noise and Noise Propagation The Noise Producers–Engines –Compressors –Expanders &Turbines –Aerial Coolers –Piping –Flares Tonal Characteristics Attenuation Techniques–Silencers –Berms and Dykes –Source Treatment –Variable Speed Drives (VSD) –The Stack Induced Draft Air Cooler (SIOAC) Recommendations - Designing for a Quiet Plant Gas Plant Environmental Noise Summary In September 1988 the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) whichregulates the Alberta Oil and Gas Industry tightened its environmental noiseguidelines by a factor X10. New nighttime maximum permissible noise levels aslow as 40dBA are now enforceable in rural areas. The directive is retroactivelyapplicable upon residential complaints and necessitated the use of radicalinnovations for industry to comply. Aerial coolers contribute substantially toplant noise and this paper discusses abatement in general and two novelapproaches taken by Amoco in particular. The use of variable speed fan drivesand stack induced draft coolers are examined in detail. Noise and Noise Propagation The Parameters Noise is measured on the decibel scale (dB). There are two distinct commonreference scales, the Sound Power Level, which is base referenced to10 Watts and Sound Pressure Level, which is base referenced to 2 × 10 N/m. Decibelsthemselves are in effect only a logarithmic ratio with no absolute meaningwithout these reference bases. Every 10dB increase represents a X10 foldincrease. Therefore, 20dB represents a x100 fold and 30dB a x1000 fold increaseetc. To distinguish between Sound Power and Sound Pressure Levels, consider thata given piece of equipment (e.g. compressor) in the steady state generates afixed Sound Power Level but that the microphone and human ear respond to Sound Pressure Leve1 which decreases (as roughly the square of distance) as thereceptor moves away from the noise source. Figure 1 lists a whole range of commonly heard noises and their approximatesound pressure levels. Figure 2 shows the logarithmic nature of decibels. Notethat only ±3dB represents a doubling/halving of sound level regardless of theabsolute decibel level.
Abstract Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), is considered the most applied EOR method, which contributes to around 66% of the global EOR. Steam Injection is normally employed on the reservoir to reduce the viscosity of heavy oil and enhancing its mobility, at high temperatures. One of the common issues arising with continuous steam injection, is reservoir heating, causing produced fluid temperature to increase, exceeding the temperature limitations of the downstream facilities. The objective of this study is to develop and provide an optimum surface cooling facility to minimize the impact of production and avoid the need for major modifications to the facility. The methodology used involve; surface process simulation using UNISIM simulator, subsurface dynamic heat modelling using CMG Stars software, materials selection, economical and costing studies. The parameters used were; existing and future well counts, individual wells gross production rates, and maximum expected produced fluid temperatures. Different solutions have been considered such as water dilution, super grade materials, Mechanical Refrigeration, Wet Surface Air Coolers, Draft Air Coolers and Heat Recovery Exchangers. The selected options have been evaluated based on technical, economical, environmental and operability criterions. Dilution with water and super graded material options were discarded, due to lack of external water supply, and significant life cycle cost respectively. All the Heat Exchanger options were also discarded due to the inability to meet cooling mediums specification, as well as the presence of economical and operational difficulties. The optimum selected technology is to provide Air Coolers at the individual Wellheads, although this solution is theoretically and economically convincing, there are some operational and maintenance challenges to overcome considering the remote locations of the steam injection wells. However, some parameters such as cost, simplified technology, maintainability, availability, will play a key role in demining the optimum technology. Unlike most published studies, the outcome of this study has been validated with existing field data (operational learnings), as well as being the first of its kind to implement, benchmarking with other major oil and gas producers, also saving significant capital costs by 69%.
The Portacool Hazardous Location 260 is a portable evaporative cooler designed to cool areas where airborne gas or debris is potentially combustible. It is ETL Certified for use in Class I, Division 2, Groups C&D and comes with FirePro, a flame retardant media designed to UL900 standards. All switches, cords, motors, and pumps are sealed in UL listed products to ensure an intrinsically safe design. The HZ260 comes with a three-year warranty on all electrical components.