Foamer application in natural gas pipelines: field test, evaluation and comparison of horizontal...
-
Upload
cristiano-ascolani-beng-meng-amienvsc -
Category
Engineering
-
view
107 -
download
0
Transcript of Foamer application in natural gas pipelines: field test, evaluation and comparison of horizontal...
, M~ter thesis in Petroleum Engineering - acadernic year: 2014/2015
One~ r olt• not enough records
Ct..llenges for the futu.-: .tficiency far ...... lnd ~ plpes. dellnltion of st•nd&rd opetarina p<OClldures
Chem1c:al ptggtng 1s a viabtcaltnnat~ to tr~ mechanocal p1gging
Co-supervisor Eng. Ettore Saluci Prof. Paolo Macini
Reduo<d operai ng l•medue lo tt-.e on-linechemoc.a pog generanon
Complete water d•"l>la<:ement "&"'I ~ Vll press<n drop redocnon
Supervisor: Prof. Ezio Mesini
2. Experimental setup -- ' ~ ........,...__,_..
~ v; ~~~ - . "~··-·:;";.i -
1. General overview 3. Results and interpretation
Cristiano Ascolani
UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA SCUOLA DI INGEGNERIA E ARCHITETTURA re>EDISON
FOAMER APPLICATION IN NATURAL GAS PIPELINES: FIELD TEST, EVALUATION ANO COMPARISON OF HORIZONTAL
DISPLACEMENT METHODS
Polyphase multicomponent
mixture (liquid and gaseous)
~ ., .. ~ 1<1•i• ~ ...
'·•••••4'1"'
Natural gas
Hydrocarbons production Substances mixture
Foamer immission lenght: e.a. 14 km
DN:6" Max altitude difference: 80 m
'Verdicchio' natual gas pipeline
Main objective
2. Experimental setup
Lenght: e.a. 14 km DN: 6"
Max altitude difference: 80 m
•;;////////I
Fosso Valloscura
~Campo ~ É\ I San Marco
Centrale SGM
Fosso Vallasciano
Fosso Moje Fosso Delle Paludi
'Verdicchio' natual gas pipeline
Positive-displacement pump Foamer & water, 2:1 ratio
Continuous injection In-batch
irnrrussron • • •
Foamer
Foamer: 130 lt Water: 60 lt
Positive-displacement pump Foamer & water, 2:1 ratio
Continuous injection In-batch
irnrrussron • • •
Foamer
New approach: CHEMICAL PIG ·-1 I ~- ...
., ..... - ~
Efficency evaluation
· Water dosplacement of 12.74 m' on 2 hours
· Badcpressure reduction from 10 bartol bar
• Gas flow rate +4.4 % iiiìillliiìli
3. Results and i nterpretation
• Gas flow rate: +4,4 %
• Water displacement of 12,74 m3 in 2 hours
• Backpressure reduction: from 10 bar to 1 bar
Final results
0.00 Netn:wptif'Q: •l.SW. f'P!·TCST;:tl1:'0l-11.'06:·~·'TtST(l2"ttr16.~ O...,pioil-~Js:
,,......, __ ''"""""
•C...- ... ,..,,.chocwl .....
----- ......... Cost-benefit analysis
• ~,, ò'~ '~'' ,, '~ '-, '~,,, ,,
SNM productlon fitid PIG2013
'"'"' ,,
- IO I L ... ,, l f ,. J J , .... "J ~ ..
.. ! .... l s •
Efficency evaluation
- ... , o -:-
E
Cli - 20 ~ "' Cli - Q. Cli
, 5 .5 -
30
o o o> ~> /. a ~ ~ 0s ~s /. o~
-1} 'l) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~o ~o ~o o,, o,, o,, o,, o,, ".1 ".1 s s s s s s ~ ~ s ~
Q (Sm3/g) H20 (m3) FLP (bar)
Pressione minima e costante
Produzione regolare
SNM production field
5000
Cli .., IO - ~ 10000 o e:: "' IO
\!>
- ~
~ 15000 ...... M
E "' -
20000
,-- FLP (bar) -Q(Sm3/g)
o
Pressure drop reduction, 11
days post-test
o
30 - ... ,., .Jl - 25 Cli ... :s "' "' Cli ... 20 Q. Cli e ·- -
15 ~ o e; ... - "" 10 E - ...
Cli ..., ,., 5 3:
35 Regular production, 3 O days post-test " z
~ - Q.
PIG 2013
5000
~ o e;: 10000 "' ,., "
- ~ ,., "'C ..._ "" E ~ 15000
Cli .., ,., ...
20000
25000
--a (Sm3/g) --H,O (m') --FLP (bar)
o " o
Pressure drop reduction, 11
days post-test 5000
20000 30 ~
è 25 !
:i ::: !
20 c. .. :§
15 ~ ci:
10 ~ ~ ~ 5
35 25000
o
25 ~ "' ~ !
20 ~ ~ ..
15 :§ ~ ci:
10 ::" .§. .. .. 5 ~
30
-Q(Sm'/g) -H,O(m') --FLP(bar)
o
Pressione minima e costante
5000
20000
SNM production field PIG 2013
>. ~ 15000 ~ !!l ~ I.'! l 10000 o
ci: .. "' "'
evaluation Efficency
Net margin (%): +3,55% Daily gain: +990€/g
Water disposal
•Test
•Gas revenue
-
,
• PRE-TEST (07 /03-11 /06) POST-TEST (12/06-16/09)
Cost-benefit analysis
-€ 100.000,00
E0,00
e 100.000,00
€ 200.000,00
€ 300.000,00
€ 400.000,00
€ 500.000,00
- FOAMER_~ ... -- -= o -~~=o Conditions:
• composition: water and foamer • pressure: previous line interruption • geometry: PCV chocked flow
CHEMICAL PIG GENERATION
New approach: CHEMICAL PIG
WATER
FOAMER_
Conditions: • composition: water and foamer • pressure: previous line interruption • geometry: PCV chocked flow
CHEMICAL PIG GENERATION
Challenges for the future: efficiency for longer and larger pipes, definition of standard operating procedures
One-test results: not enough records
Ehemical pigging is a viable alternative to traditional mechanical pigging
Reduced operating time due to the in-line chemical pig generation
Complete water displacement, significant pressure drop reduction
Conclusions
Tl1an1Rs f or your attention O.òlltei>&es lor the future efficien<y p ..... ond ~ ptpes. definrtion of stand.ud opaat'"a promdwes
Ooc-tcst t lts, not cnoi..gh recceds
Chcmical Pieing ls a v1abk: altanalM: to tracitional ml!'dwiitill p gwrtg
RC'ducec:f Opl:'r,1•1rig t mc due to tbe .,..Wct.het'nical ~ ~r."t"IOl1
Cornpl -tcWl!tr-rd1·-f)41 eme 1t. •' NprnM#'edrcp ti 1•rl• I
Conclusions
2. Experimental setup
@ ' ":!:..':"" (&).e) -- - : -· I
3. Results and i nterpretation
~'A, __ ~ VA.· , G
Cristiano Ascolani
UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA SCUOLA DI INGEGNERIA E ARCHITETTURA
~ Master thesis in Petroleum Engineering - cademic year: 2014/2015
Co-supervisor Eng. Ettore Saluci Prof. Paolo Macini
Supervisor: Prof. Ezio Mesini
1. General overview
~EDISON
FOAMER APPLICATION IN NATURAL GAS PIPELINES: FIELD TEST, EVALUATION ANO COMPARISON OF HORIZONTAL
DISPLACEMENT METHODS