SPE 35687 Environmentally Safe Burner For Offshore Well Testing Operations

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

Society of PetroteumEngtneers

SPE 35687

Environmentally Safe Burner For Offshore Well Testing Operations


Timothy M. Young, P. E., SPE, Halliburton Energy Services

Copyright 1596, Soc!ety o{ Petroleum Engineers, Inc


Introduction
Th!s paper was prepared for presentation al the SPE Western f3eg!onal Meeling held In Well testing during exploration and appraisal includes the
Anchorage, Alaska 22-24 May 1996
production of hydrocarbons with a temporary production facility
Th!s paper was selacled {or presentation by an SPE Program Commltee following reviaw of
Imforwton contained m an abstract submitted by the author(s). Cwtenls of the paper have not to obtain fluid samples, flow rate and pressure information for
been rev!ewd by the Scc!ety of Petroleum Efl@nBWS and are subpct to correction by the interpretation to help characterize the reservoir. Important
aulhol(s). Tha material, as prasenled, does not necessarily reflect any poslton of ffm Soctefy of
Petroleum Engineers, Idsolf!cers, or members Papers presented at SPE meatings are sub@l decisions such as production methods, facilities and well
to putiuat!on rewew by Ed!tonal timmittees of the Scciety 01 Petroleum Enginaam Permission
to copy IS restrtctad to an abstract of not more than 31N words. illustrations may not ba copwd productivity improvement are made from this information.
The abstract should contain conspicuous acknotiedgmant of Were and by whom the papar is
plesanled. Wnle L!braoan, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75063-38=, U.S.A. Te!ex,
Disposal of produced hydrocarbon liquids during WCII
163245 SPEUT testing is typical when facilities are not available for storage as
in the case ot’mohilc offshore drilling rigs and remote locations
Abstract onshore. Although it is understood that there would hc benefi[,
One of the problems that occurs during offshore well testing has both economically and environmentally, from cnllccting the
been the discharge of unburned hydrocarbon emissions into the produced hydrocarbons, disposal via burning is generally the
air and sea that leave deposits of oily slicks or “sheen” on the accepted mctbod for a short-duration test since it offers the most
water surface. This residue results from inefficient flaring cost efficient solution.
operations and can have adverse effects on marine environment. Alternatives to disposal for offshore testing include well test
This paper will discuss a new burner that has been VCSSCISor producing to tankers or barges while onshore
dcvclopcd to oddress the environmentally unfriendly fallout alternatives require a transportation infrastructure, all of which
cond itions that have occurred from crude oil disposal during incur additional cxpcnsc. These alterna[ivcs are most likely to be
traditional WCIItesting operations. To support a broad range of cost cffectivc for long duration or high rate tests or where
applications, the design criteria for this burner included not only environmental regulatory restrictions dictate tha[ they bc used.
the capability m perform fallout free in the wide range of The oil industry has been committed to cnvironrncntally
conditions cxpcctcd during well testing but also to be simple to friendly exploration and appraisal, and with this improved
operate, have a compact lightweight design with a stable pilot burner technology, the fallout of unburned hydrocarbons and
and igniter systcm, provide clean startup, and require low oil dense smoke clouds can be significantly reduced or eliminated
pressure. during well testing operations. Thus, disposal by flaring during
Burner pcrforrnancc is significantly affected by fuel oil testing operations can now be an environmentally acceptable
prnpcr[ics and its ammization characteristics. The paper will solution. Fig 1 shows the burner in operation during prototype
include an overview of these topics and their relationship to the testing, flowing at approximately 6300 BOPD.
combustion process, how these topics were addressed in the
dcvclopmcnt of the design, and the testing that was performed History of Oil Burners
hy an indcpcnden[ Norwegian environmental testing company Burners, which may be referred to as “Well Test” or “Crude Oil”
to verify the burner’s efficiency. burners, have been used for over 25 years (Fig 2). Prior to their
The burner designed to these specifications includes an development, only gas wells were tested offshore as gas flaring
array of atomizers, uniquely placed to improve flame turbulence was generally considered to bc an acceptable and efficient
and air ingestion important to efficient combustion. Engineering practice. After the development of the burners, oil WCIItesting
tests performed with 18 degree API crude oil were fallout free could be accomplished, which provided the opportunity to
and smokeless, and tests performed by the independent acquire and use important reservoir information,
environmental testing company verified that the new burner Liquid hydrocarbon flaring during well testing r)pcrations
design pcrformc(l with 99.9 percent efficiency as a burning presents a problem when incomplete combustion results, and
disposal systcm. there is Fallout of unburned hydrocarbons and objectionable
gaseous emissions. Although various burner designs have
performed well in some cases, a “sheen on the water, ” which is

369
2 TIMOTHYM. YOUNG SPE 35687

the politically correct term or description for fallout, was noted produced by burning are Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide,
with many. Analyses of actual burner capabilities are especially Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate Matter and Volatile Organic
difficult to ascertain during offshore operations from rigside Compounds. Scientists have concluded that the depletion of the
since the buoyancy of the flame can carry the fallout great ozone layer is due to a chemical reaction between the NOX from
distances, and wave action can effectively disperse the oil. combustion emissions and the ozone in the atmosphere. The
Smoke may be an indicator of burner performance, but it undesirable by-products of sulfur dioxide (S03, H2S04 aerosol
too, can be misleading. Engineering tests have determined cases and acid rain) are air pollutants, which can damage health and
in which a completely smokeless burn exhibited considerable cause corrosion and the acidification of lakes.
fallout. While a dense smoke plume that stretches for miles is an Smoke generated during the combustion process is
indicator of poor burner performance and fallout, a dense smoke particularly objectionable. Smoke is formed via a gas phase
that dissipates rapidly is likely to be efficient from a fallout combustiotipyrolysis process and also contains cenospheres (oil
standpoint. coke), which are produced from cracked fuel or carbon
Injecting water externally into the well test burner flame has combined with any ash present in the fuel, Another source of
been a common practice for flaring operations, and its smoke is unburned or partially burned droplets. During the
effectiveness has been the subject of much debate. Some believe combustion of hydrocarbons, it is generally accepted that the
it enhances the combustion process — but others disagree. paraffinic hydrocarbon radicals are decomposed (pyrolyzed),
While there is a beneficial role that water injection can play in forming acetylene (polyaromatic hydrocarbons). The ethynes
burner operations, the misapplication of this practice can have polymerize to form polyethynes; these, together with
extremely negative consequences. Large water droplets combine polyaromatic rings, then form soot particles which coagulate to
with the oil and fallout. The white water vapor mixes with the form the final products. The amount and rate of soot formation
black smoke and produces a gray plume, which may be more is dependent upon the hydrocarbon molecular structure and the
aesthetically desirable but environmentally is still unacceptable. fuel/oxidant ratio.
The theory of adding water to reduce smoke stems from the Cenospheres result from droplets passing through oxygen-
reduction of carbon that can occur from two separate causes. deficient regions at high temperature. The yield of this
First, the water present in the oil results in disruptive burning, particulate material is dependent upon the content of high
and the droplets are effectively further atomized to smaller boiling components, particularly asphaltenes, and upon the
droplets with consequential reduction in smoke. Second, the opportunity the droplet has while in the combustion zone to
presence of the water droplets acts as a heat sink in the burning undergo liquid phase cracking.
droplets, and thereby, reduces liquid phase thermal cracking and For soot to be produced, fuel rich conditions must be
cenosphere formation. attained. In spray combustion, soot forming conditions are
Quantifying this type of burner performance is difficult. always achieved since the region between the droplet surface
Typical combustion applications are enclosed, and parameters (evaporated droplets) and the surrounding flames is always fuel
significant to combustion performance; i.e., excess air, flame rich. Inevitably, soot is produced in this region during the
temperature and turbulence, may also be controlled. This burner combustion of hydrocarbons, and the flame zone always exhibits
application discharges large quantities of fuel into the open air a yellow luminosity.
with no control over the typical combustion-control parameters.
Developmental work to improve burner efficiency has been Operation of Traditional Well Test Burners
concentrated on atomization, fluid conditioning, and water The basic requirement for well-test-type burners is that they
injection, which are controllable parameters. efficiently dispose of the produced liquids over a wide range of
The environmental conditions that must be addressed by the flow rates and ambient conditions. The produced liquids may
design of a burner are discussed below. include non-combustibles, and the hydrocarbon portion
combustion characteristics may vary considerably.
Fallout. Both offshore and land-based operations are Burners consist of atomizers and an ignition source.
susceptible to raw oil fallout due to inadequately atomized oil Efficient liquid fuel spray combustion requires small droplets
sprays. Liquid fuel spray atomization produces a wide range of that will completely vaporize during their residence time in the
droplet sizes in various quantities. The problem concerns the flame. Liquid fuel spray combustion is actually the hydrocarbon
large droplets. Flames have a propensity to rise due to the heat, vapor surrounding the droplet burning. Combustion occurs as
and liquid droplets fall due to gravity. Thus, vapor surrounding the hydrocarbon vapor mixes with air and is exposed to an
the droplet burns or rises, but the droplet falls. ignition source. Droplet vaporization is a function of the initial
Atomization with heavy crude produces larger droplets than droplet size, fluid properties and heat of combustion. Oil is
with lighter oil, and it has less propensity to burn. Heavy oils supplied to burners via pumps or directly from an oil and gas
require heating to reduce viscosity to a level suitable for proper separator during the well test. Air is supplied from compressors.
atomization. Energy from either the oil flow, air flow, or a combination of
both spray liquid fuel as tiny droplets into the air. Flame
Air Poliution.’ The principal undesirable air emissions stability is an important characteristic of combustion

370
SPE 35687 ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE BURNER FOR OFFSHORE WELL TESTING OPERATIONS 3

applications. l%ehigh nozzle exit velocities that produce the


superior atomization and efficient combustion can be subject to Atomization Technolog~3’4
instability making the pilot an important element in the overall There is clear evidence of a direct link between the liquid spray
reliability of the burner system. structure and the emission of pollutants. The subject of
atomization and sprays, as it relates to combustion, has
Improvement Attempts. The droplet size and distribution have developed rapidly during the past two decades; however, most
been the basic problems limiting existing style burners, and a of the work has involved smaller atomizers that bum a clean
number of attempts have been made to improve existing burner fuel. Many of the same principles applicable to the smaller
performance. However, none of these have adequately provided atomizers also apply to the larger atomizers used in well-test-
the sought-after improvements. The first effort employed a type burners. Factors affecting atomizer performance are fluid
swiveling ‘burner head so that the flame could be pointed directly flow rate, air flow rate, nozzle geometry and fluid viscosity,
downwind. The idea was sound from the standpoint that the surface tension and density. Atomization is facilitated using the
larger droplets would have more residence time in the flame; oil supply pressure and an air supply.
however, the atomization was worse, since the relative velocity Oil viscosity has a significant impact on nozzle atomization
of the liquid spray was reduced. With the underlying problem regardless of the nozzle type. In some nozzles it is less
being the large droplet size, the solution was relevant to proper significant than in others, but for the nozzles considered for well
atomization for combustion. Additional efforts used various test burners, a minimal improvement in atomization for
types of shrouds, which effectively shielded the pilot, but when viscosity’s less than 18 cp can be expected. If viscosity
engineering tests were performed, no improvement in information from crude in the area is available, it should be used
combustion performance was noted. Thus, the use of shrouds with 18 cp as the maximum viscosity to determine a minimum
also proved to be unsuccessful. acceptable temperature for burning.
Numerous atomizer designs are in use today. Pressure swirl
Reduction of Emission Particulate atomizers are common and typically include either an internal or
In order to reduce emission particulate, it is necessary to control external compressed air blast. Various internal air-mix-type
the combustion conditions. Methods that would be applicable to atomizers are currently used. Prefilming-type atomizers have
well test burners for controlling the conditions include: been evaluated for this application. Atomization is recognized
● The degree of swirl or turbulence as the major factor in burner performance and the information
● The combustion intensity below summarizes the types the writer has tested and pertinent
● The quality of atomization comments.
● The spatial distribution of the spray
The adjustment of any of these parameters to make the Pressure Swirl Atomizer. This fixed-orifice atomizer is shown
spray behave as a premixed gaseous flame will result in the in Fig. 3 and is a modified simplex pressure swirl type. Orifices
reduction of smoke and fallout. However, applying these direct fluid flow into a swirl chamber, and the conical discharge
methods to well testing crude oil burners is a difficult task. of fine particles is further atomized with a sonic air blast from an
Swirl. For instance, to increase the degree of swirl, a flame external annular air gap. Burners using these include multiple
that can be quite long must be impacted. The combustion zone atomizers that allow operation over a wide flow range by
in this application is an atmosphere of infinite proportions since selecting the optimum atomizer quantity for the flow rate.
this is an open-air combustion process. Thus, the prospect of Equipment upstream of the burner, such as the separator or
imparting an effective swirl to even a small part of the flame is transfer pump, dictate the system flow and pressure. Burning
negligible. The new burner uses multiple nozzles in a unique with the fewest fixed orifice nozzles possible produces the
array that improve air ingestion and turbulence, which are highest oil backpressure at the burner and the highest fluid
necessary for efficient combustion. velocities in the swirl chamber, which produce the best
Combustion. Typical combustion applications allow atomization. The extemaf sonic air blast is a contributing factor
control of time, temperature and turbulence. The combustion to the quality of atomization, particularly at the lower oil-flow
reaction takes place when adequate fuel, oxygen and heat are rates.
present. The fuel must be in the form of a vapor since the liquid Using the oil pressure as the primary energy source for
does not burn. The sole purpose of the atomizers is to create atomization has disadvantages. Small passages and high
droplets small enough to completely vaporize during their velocities make this nozzle susceptible to erosion and to
exposure to the heat of combustion and ignite when exposed to plugging. From the combustion standpoint, these nozzles are
oxygen. The desired spatial distribution of the spray uniformly less than desirable for two reasons: 1) the spatial distribution of
disperses the droplets to maximize air ingestion. the conical spray pattern produces fuel rich regions, and 2) the
Atomization Quality and Spatial Di.sti”bution. The quality atomized droplet size is not acceptable at current pressure levels.
of atomization and the spatial distribution of the spray are two of The atomization will improve with significantly higher
the parameters that can be controlled in an open air combustion pressures, but operationally, this is undesirable since it would
application to directly affect emissions. mean smaller orifices and the need for higher pressure pumps.

371
4 TIMOTHY M. YOUNG SPE 35687

Also, it would prevent flowing directly from the separator, backpressure and fluid velocity in the nozzle increase as the oil
which is a very desirable scenario from an operational flow is increased, and the droplet size decreases with this
standpoint. increase in velocity. The prefilming atomizer utilizes air as the
primary energy source for atomization. In this nozzle type the
Adjustable Orifice Atomizer air to liquid mass ratio is the significant factor for atomization.
The adjustable orifice nozzle, shown in Fig. 4, is similar to the The spring-loaded nozzle was designed to have high
fixed orifice nozzle in function with the exception that the inlet velocities, resulting in smaller droplets, over a wide flow range,
orifices vary with the flow rate. This produces high fluid The droplet size difference was not sufficient to significantly
velocities in the swirl chamber and nozzle exit over a wide range improve the burn, The fixed orifice pressure swirl atomizer
of flows. Regardless whether the flow rate is high or low, the average droplet size is three times that of the prefilm type
fluid discharge velocity is high. Operationally, this is a desirable nozzle. The spring-loaded nozzle will perform identically to the
feature since there are no adjustments during operation. The fixed-orifice nozzles at high rates,
perfm-rnancc of the adjustable orifice nozzles during engineering Internal air mix atomizers exhibited the most favorable
tests was not significantly better than with fixed orifice nozzles. characteristics from combustion, atomization and operational
The concept of this type nozzle is fundamentally sound, and its standpoints. The existing atomizers of this type have an inherent
lack of performance can be attributed to the atomizer type. design problem. Performance of internal air mix atomizers with
dual orifices can be related directly to the air-to-oil ratio, which
Internal Air Mix Atomizer with Dual Orifices The internal air decreases as the oil flow rate increases. Compressed air sources
mix atomizer with dual orifices functions as a combination of a are pressure regulated. Air flow through a fixed orifice into a
plain jet and effervescent atomizer (Fig. 5). Air injected into the chamber upstream of the final exit orifice decreases as air flow
liquid creates bubbles which are carried through the exit orifice increases.
where they disintegrate, shattering the liquid into small drops.
This atomizer has an inlet orifice and a larger exit orifice, Background of the New Burner
and air injected between the two orifices mixes and swirls the The burner design discussed in this paper is based on a number
fluid. Air requirements for this type nozzle is medium. It of land-based water and burn tests where different atomizers and
produces a very lengthy solid cone spray pattern instead of the operational scenarios were evaluated. Full scale bums were
short conical pattern of the pressure swirl atomizers. It performs conducted because of the uncertainty of scaling the atomization
best at low oil flow rates. The performance of all air assist function, which is viewed as the major factor affecting
atomizers is very dependent on the air to liquid mass flow ratio. performance. Land based testing was required so fallout could
By design, as the oil flow rate increases, the air flow rate be monitored. Once the burner development was optimized, an
decreases which is a disadvantage at the higher end of its oil independent environmental testing company with previous
flow capacity. Performance at the lower end of its rated capacity experience quantifying this type of burner performance was
is good. contracted to verify the burner performance.

Pretihning Type Atomizer. The prefilming type nozzle, shown Burner Development
in Fig. 6, has tangential oil inlets which spread the oil into a thin Tbc development of this burner began after a series of tests were
sheet, and it is then subjected to the atomizing action of the high conducted to improve the performance of existing burners using
velocity air. Two separate air flows are provided to allow the pressure swirl atomizers, adjustable orifice atomizers and
atomizing air to impact both sides of the liquid sheet. The exit internal air mix type atomizers with dual orifices.
shroud in conjunction with the high velocity exiting air disperse Three burn tests with over twenty variations of these
the sheet. Air requirement for this type atomizer is high. atomizers were conducted. The initial objective — to improve
Engineering tests on prototypes of this atomizer type the process without a significant increase in air compressor or oil
showed excellent atomization characteristics and additional pump requirements — was abandoned when test results showed
development produced a dual lip atomizer. Both included short, conclusively that additional energy for atomization would be
conical spray patterns that were less than desirable from the required if performance objectives were to be obtained.
combustion performance standpoint; fuel rich regions without The new focus included improving atomization over the
adequate air. Also, since this atomizer has a narrow, annular exit wide range of flow rates and oil types expected during well
gap, its application in the well testing was viewed as testing without the constraints of previous designs. Increasing
questionable due to plugging. air flow was selected as the means to improve atomization. The
other option, higher oil pressure, was not considered a desirable
Comparing the Atomizers. Pressure swirl atomizers and option for a number of reasons, which were:
prefilming nozzles both function via a fluid sheet disintegrating 1. Fewer opportunities to flow directly from the separator
as it exits the nozzle. Velocity and initial sheet thickness are 2. Nozzle erosion would be worse with the higher fluid
both significant factors in the subsequent atomization. Since the velocities
pressure swirl atomizer has fixed inlet orifices, the oil 3. Smaller oil passages would increase the chances of plugging

372
SPE 35687 ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE BURNER FOR OFFSHORE WELL TESTING OPERATIONS 5

4, Constraintson operational simplicity (performance varies each test, tbcy were distributed, and after each test, they were
w/rates and nozzle quantity) placed in separate plastic bags. To calculate the collected fallout
5. Increased cost and maintenance of new, higher pressure volume, each collection sheet was carefully examined, and the
pumps drops were counted, measured, and grouped into categories, The
6. Increased safety considerations wi(hpiping andpotcn!ial process included washing the collection sheets and referencing
plugging to nonabsorbing sheets. The final calculated results were
Tests were designed to evaluate atomizers requiring the ob[aincd by means of a fallout model developed by the firm
higher air quantities. Before the actual burn test, a detailed through their work with tbcsc and previous tcs(s conducted in
assessment comparing two existing and three new atomizer Norway. Provisions were included to account for possible
configurations was made. Models estimating average droplet evaporation of hydrocarbons resulting from radiation intensity
size under varying conditions were studied. Water spray tests, from the flare.
which were conducted using a Phase Doppler Particle Analyzer, Ideally, the sampling should have excluded startup and
were only partially successful at determining droplet size and shutdown of the burn to prevent overestimating the fallout. This
distribution for the nozzles in question. The plan was to collect was not done during these tests; therefore, the results reported
droplet size and distribution information and relate itto the include startup and shutdown.
actual burn tests. The interpretation of the results proved to be more difficult
A burn tcs[ site was SC(up so nozzles could be burn tested, than their previous tests due to the minimal amount of fallout
modified and rc-tested. The internal-air-mix atomizer used on collected. All eight tests clearly demonstrated that the new
the new burner is a variation of an existing atomizer. Several burner fallout levels were minimal. The results (outlined in
geometry’s were tested, modified, and retested until an Table 1) were considered conservative with an accuracy within
acceptable performance was established. 30% of tbc maximum amount of fallout expected under normal
When it had been determined that the new atomizer design operation.
and the philosophy that multiple tips, adequately spaced for
good air ingestion, would provide the best performance, a thrcc- Test Discussion
atomizer assembly was designed, fabricated, and tested with The objective of the first four tests was to gather information at
good results. Two more assemblies were fabricated so the three 3 ]4S BPD per head with different numbers of heads operating
head assembly could be tested at rates up to 12,500 BOPD. to evaluate the effects of multiple heads. Each head has a
nominal rating of 4000 BPD. Test 5 was a maximum oil rate test
Third Party Testing’ with three heads. Test 6 was maximum Ouid rate with a 15%
In an effort to quantify the new burner performance to satisfy water cut.
customer and Norwegian Environmental Protection “rest 7 was a fixed fluid rate test with water injected into the
Agency (SFf) requirements, a Norwegian environmental testing oil at 15-, 20-, 25-, 30- and 357. of the total flow rate of 6350
Company wos contracted to evaluate the new burner BPD through one head. Note that the total flow rate exceeded
performance. The test program included the following the nominal 4000 BPD rating. Water was injected upstream of
objectives: [he pump. A considerable amount of smoke was generated with
1. To establish the efficiency of the burner with respect to straight oil, and water injection eliminated tbe smoke. No
oil fallout during operation with light crude oil. adverse flame stability characteristics were detected with the
2. To establish the efficiency of the burner with respecl to water injection. This test was not included in the fallout
oil fallout during operation with light crude having a water calculation exercise, but visually, the fallout results were similar
content of approximately 1570. to tbc previous tests.
3. To carry out operating tests on the burner during Test 8 was a demonstration of the burner atrsmizcr to burn
varying oil flow and water content. an 1Xdegree API heavy crude oil.
4. To test the burner efficiency on heavy crude oil with Tests one through seven were 15 minutes in duration and
respect to fallout during single nozzle operation. used a W-degree API dead crude oil. Oil, air, water flow rates,
A total number of eight tests were carried out on different and pressures were monitored during tbe tests. The nominal air
numbers of burner heads, different oil flow rates and water cuts. requirement for the burner is 1500 Scfhl per head, 100 Psi. The
To estimate the volume of unburned oil which drops out of oi I pressure requirement is 200 psi at rated flow. The photos
the flame, sampling grids were established downwind of [hc shown in Figs. 7-10 were taken during the testing referenced
burner. Collection sheets were the sample means and dis[rihutcd above.
within [he grid area. Both absorbing and nonabsorhing sheets
were used in some locations. To estimate the fallout volume, a The New Burner Atomizer
method was developed where the number and size of droplets The new, environmentally friendly burner uscs an intcrnal-air-
collected on the collection sheet were used to calculate the mix atomizer, The oil inlet orifice (o the mixing chamber is
fallout volume for the total grid area. gcncrmrsly sized to prevent plugging upstream on the oil side.
The collection sheets were a non-ignitable nmtcrial. Before Unlike the other atomizers of this type tested, it does not have a

373
6 TIMOTHY M. YOUNG SPE 35687

reduced size final exit orifice. Air flow rates are basically should be left on for a few minutes after oil flow has stopped to
constant over the entire oil flow rate range, and the improved cool the equipment; then, it should be stopped slowly. The gas
air-to-oil ratio at high oil rates improves the combustion jets should be turned off, and unless another flow period is
performance. The unobstructed mixing chamber eliminates expected, the pilots should be turned off.
potential plugging problems downstream of the air injection Although injecting water into the flame externally is not
point. Its low oil pressure requirement is desirable from recommended, a vertical water curtain in a plane 15 to 20 feet
operational and erosional standpoints. behind the burner to reduce the thermal radiation from the flame
is recommended, In most cases, water is also used rigside. The
Burner Operation water flow period typically parallels the oil flow period.
The new burner uses a pilot system (Fig. 11) with remote Water injected into the oil suppresses smoke and also
ignition that includes an exceptionally stable pilot and gas jets reduces thermal radiation. Its important to note that the water
directed to each nozzle. This arrangement initiates oil spray cut percentage must be controlled. Slugs of water are not
ignition quickly during startup and provides a stable ignition acceptable as they will extinguish the flame. The burners are
source during shutdown. Pilots are typically fueled with propane currently being used for water disposal during testing operations
or separator gas. Diesel pilots are also used. and these applications benefit from the radiation reduction and
The basic operating scenario for the burner is as follows, smoke suppression.
and a schematic of the equipment setup is shown in Fig. 12:
1. Ignite the pilot portion of the pilot assembly. This can Conclusions
be done remotely via an electrical switch or locally. Although this new burner technology was primarily developed
2. Flow gas through gas jets on the pilot assembly to to support offshore oil testing operations, it is also applicable to
insure there are distinct gas jet flames directed toward each remote land-based crude oil operations. Engineering tests
atomizer. performed with 18 degree API crude oil were fallout free and
3. Turn off the gas jet supply. Since the pilots use only 4 smokeless, Multiple tests of up to 12,580 BOPD performed by
scf/H each, the burner can be left in the standby mode for an independent environmental testing company verified that the
extended periods. The pilot portion of the igniter system is new burner design performed over 99.9 percent efficient as an
exceptionally stable, uses an independent propane supply, and open-air burning-disposal system. Of particular significance is
is ready when the operator is ready to flow. The gas jets are the fact that the new burner design can support constraints of the
typically started up with propane, and then, switched to separator new, more stringent regulatory environmental standards because
gas. They use more gas than the pilot portion and are plumbed of its capability to reduce pollution from hydrocarbon fallout
for the dual source. during well testing in a wide oil-flow rate range, In addition, the
4. Turn on the compressed air. Check that the air pressure simpie design and low oil pressure requirements of the burner
upstream of the burner is around 100 psi. The air supply is require minimal maintenance and reduce the chance for erosion,
significant for proper performance. Lines must be proped y thus providing cost efficient operation.
sized and an adequate source available for the number of heads
expected to be operated. Acknowledgments
5. Before the oil is supplied to the burner, the gas jets The author wishes to express appreciation to Halliburton Energy
should be turned on. If the supply of oil flows quickly, Services for its support in the development and testing of this
immediate ignition can be expected. Intermittent and very, very burner and permission to publish this paper. Special thanks are
low oil flow rates may flash on and off through various extended to the Halliburton Dallas STE/EPS Team and Norway
atomizers till there is a continuous flow through all atomizers. operations as well as to the U.K. operators who were
Flames are independent at low rates and grow into one at the instrumental in testing and development of the new burner.
higher rates.
6. During operation there are no adjustments to make that References
affect burner performance, Based on the experience to date, 1. Williams, A.: Combustion of Liquid Fuel Sprays,
smokeless operation can be expected up to approximately 3000 Butterworth and Co., Ltd, (1990).
BPD per head. From there up to the 4000 BPD maximum rate 2. Lefebvre, A.H.: Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere
per head, a smoke plume, which dissipates rapidly, can be Publishing Corporation (1989).
expected, If the oil contains water, the burner provides 3. Chigier, N. And Lefebvre, A.: “Short Course Notes,”
smokeless performance up to and exceeding the maximum Volume 1, Atomization and Sprays, Carnegie Mellon
rating. Monitoring the compressors and pilot gas supplies University.
should be done regul ad y during operation. 4. Chigier, N. And Lefebvre, A.: “Short Course Notes,”
7. Shutdown is a matter of stopping the oil flow. In cases Volume 2, Atomization and Sprays, Carnegie Mellon
of particular sensitivity to any unnecessary discharge, flushing University.
the oil out of the line with gas or closing the oil valve at the
burner prior to stopping the air can be considered. The air 5. Report: “Fallout from Well Test Burners,” Halliburton

374
SPE 35687 ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE BURNER FOR OFFSHORE WELL TESTING OPERATIONS 7

Burner Tests, Norsk Energi, (C)et 1994).

Si Metric Conversion Factors


bbl X 1.5879873 E- 01 = M3
Cp x I .O* E-03 =Pa. s
ft X .048* E- Ol=m
f? X 2.831685 E -02= m’
“F (“F - 32)/1.8 = ‘c
in X 2.54* E+OO = cm
psi X 6.894757 E+OO = kPa

*Conversion factor is exact

I Table 1- Teat Results I

Test Flow Rate Flow Rate Calc. Fallout Burner Eff.

# MA3~ BPD MA3/D %

1 500 3145 .003 99.9995

2 1000 6290 .026 99.9974

3 1000 6290 .I18 99.9882

4 1500 9435 .168 99.9888

5 2000 12580 .213 99.9894

6 I 700 10693 .112 99.9934

7 Varying

8 136 856

375
AIR IN

AIR IN

OIL IN
\ m

/
/
OIL IN

Figure 3 Figure 4
Fixed Orifice Nozzle Adjustable Orifice Nozzle

“R’N7T=FJ’I
, ,’., ,% ~%%i! !. .

OIL IN

Figure 5
Internal Air Mix Nozzle

UIL IIN

AIR IN

/7
I I

‘al

Figure 6
Prefilming Type Nozzle
377
Power
iloor220V 1

Figure f 1
Pilot and Igniter Assembly

Jet

Process
Wat

ain

Burners

Figure 12
Typical Equipment Setup

380

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy