PRODUCTION • PROCESSING • HANDLING
SECTION TITLE
As a chemical-free, physical process
UV provides a range of process benefi ts and operational advantages. As regulations such as HOCNF become more stringent, operators have made the holistic link between injection water and returning produced water and its impact on environmental impact factors (EIF). Because UV does not introduce any residual compounds into the water, challenges regarding residual toxic chemicals in returning produced water or the formation of disinfection by-products such as halogenated hydrocarbons (due to the chlorination of seawater) can be reduced or in some cases eliminated – driving down operational costs whilst improving environmental performance. Operationally, UV disinfection can
reduce the need to ship, store and handle chemicals off shore, helping to improve safety and drive down operational costs. In recent research (2016) conducted by Shell, the typical payback for using UV versus biocides for small fl ow application, e.g. 300m3
/hr, could be as little as one to
two years (onshore EOR injection well, the Netherlands). For larger fl ow rates >2000m3
/hr
OPEX costs can be signifi cant. Another major oil & gas operator compared the costs of supply, transportation, handling, storage and injection of acrolein into
300,00 bwpd against those of a chemical-free, UV disinfection package. Based on a fi ve-year operation calculation the biocide would cost £3,500,000 against only £130,000 in lamps, maintenance and power for UV. UV disinfection
plants are typically skid-mounted or containerised and when compared to alternative disinfection technologies such as electro- chlorination, are typically 50% smaller in footprint and weight. Models such as the WF or Wafer by atg UV Technology use modern ‘in- line’ designs that see UV reactor designs mimic butterfl y valves, allowing for installation or retrofi ts into the tightest of pipe galleries. Developments in power supply technology and UV lamp design have signifi cantly increased both UV system capacity and operational life, with certain UV designs being able to operate continuously for over two years before requiring maintenance, making UV systems suited to future developments such as unmanned platforms and subsea installations. In addition to seawater injection for well injection and EOR applications, UV disinfection is now being adopted for pipeline hydrotest water, produced water reinjection and more recently, for the treatment of fl owback water before reinjection in hydraulic fracturing (shale gas and oil) applications. ●
ABOVE: Mobile 20ft containerised UV plant for treatment of fl owback water RIGHT: Plant for the treatment of seawater used in the Nord Stream project
Paul Hennessey is Oil & Gas Business Manager at atg UV Technology
www.atguv.com
www.engineerlive.com 35
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
