flare gas emission control / produced water evaporation a

Flare Gas Emission Control /

Produced Water Evaporation

A New Approach

Flare Gas Emission Regulations

40 CFR Part 98• Measure, Record and Report40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO (a)• Referred to as Quad Oa• Includes “Reduced Emission Completions”

RECs also referred to as “Green Completions”• Effective Aug. 2nd 2016• Applies to wells brought into service after Sept. 18th 2015

Texas Statewide Rule 32• 45 day permits• Can be extended to 180 days max


40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO (a)• (1) requiring that certain control devices or practices be

used to reduce methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from regulated equipment and during well completions, and

• (2) implementing leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs to prevent natural gas leaks at well sites and compressor stations.

• The rule only applies to well sites, compressor stations, natural gas processing plants, and certain equipment that is new or has been “modified” or “reconstructed” since Sept. 18, 2015.


40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO (a)RECs or Green Completions• (1) requiring that certain control devices or practices be

used to reduce methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from regulated equipment and during well completions, and

• operators must route all salable gas from a separator to a flow line or collection system, re-injected it into the well or another well, use it as an onsite fuel source, or use it for “another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve.”


40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO (a)• Cost of Regulations

Cost Proposed Rule

(millions)

Final Rule

(millions)

Capital Cost (2020) $170-$180 $250

Annualized Engineering Costs

$180-$200 $390

Estimated MethaneCaptured (2020)

16 (mcf)

By EPA’s Estimate : $40/mcf


Cost of Regulations

• EPA considers methane to be a far more potent GHG, in the preamble to Quad Oa they state methane has a 100-year global warming potential which is 28-36 times greater than CO2.

• EPA estimates that Quad Oawill reduce methane emissions by 6.9 million metric tons of CO2 in 2020.

Cost Proposed

Rule

(millions)

Final Rule

(millions)

Capital Cost (2020)

$170-$180 $250


$180-$200 $390


16 (mcf)



Cost of Regulations

• EPA then used the Social Cost of Methane to determine that every ton of methane emissions that this rule prevents was worth $1,100 in present dollars.

• EPA estimates methane-related monetized climate benefits of the rule will be $360 million in 2020

Cost Proposed

Rule

(millions)

Final Rule

(millions)

Capital Cost (2020)

$170-$180 $250


$180-$200 $390


16 (mcf)



Cost of Regulations

• Social Cost of Methane derived from Social Cost of Carbon

• Social Cost of Carbon working group has not endorsed social cost of methane

• Social Cost of Carbon has it’s own controversy• OMB recommends discount rate of

3% and 7%• 2.5%, 3% and 5% used by working

group• Carbon fertilization calculated to be

35%, yet working group used 8%

Cost Proposed

Rule

(millions)

Final Rule

(millions)

Capital Cost (2020)

$170-$180 $250


$180-$200 $390


16 (mcf)


Flare Gas Emission Control / Produced Water

EvaporationFlare vs. Combustor

Patent Pending

Flares Combustors

Open Flame Enclosed Flame

Poor heat recovery Good heat recovery

Highly visible flame No visible flame

Visible flame leads to public perception issues

No visible flame reduces public perception issues

High noise level Lower noise level


Evaporation

• Flare Gas Emission Control– Wet Scrubber – Uses water to control acid gases,

NOx, SOx and particulate matter• Up to 98% effective

– Wet Scrubber Using Produced/Flowback Water• Testing in progress• Patent Pending

“another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve.”

Patent Pending


Evaporation

• Flare Gas Emission Control– Practical Applications• Emission Control (Stay Ahead of the Curve)

– Reduce NOx– Reduce SOx– Reduce acid gases– Reduce Particulate Matter

• Avoid cost of methane collection where not cost effective– Wells are too remote– Market price for gas is too low

Patent Pending


Evaporation

• Produced Water Evaporation– Practical Applications

• Management of Produced Water– Where disposal cost is high

» Remote wells– Where disposal capacity is an issue (induced seismicity)

» Oklahoma has shut down wells» Ohio has limited density of injection wells and require

seismic monitoring» Some Ohio wells have failed seismic monitoring on first

day of operation• Flowback Management

– More costly to dispose of» Disposal wells traditionally charge more for flowback

– More difficult to recycle» Residual frac additives, broken gels usually limit

recycling of flowback

Patent Pending



Evaporation

• Gas Flaring and Flowback (Modified Flares)– Flaring is currently allowed during the

flowback period– While gas collection is being installed– Flowback is more expensive and difficult to

manage than produced water– Using Flowback as a scrubbing agent solves

two problems• Reduce Flare Emissions• Eliminates or significantly reduced Flowback

volumes

Patent Pending


EvaporationBasics:• Produced Water is used to

control emissions from flaring

• Produced water becomes a consumable resource

• Disposal of produced water or Flowback is eliminated

• Byproduct is evaporated solids and salts

Patent Pending


Evaporation Patent Pending


Field Gas Combustor

Wet Scrubber usingProduced Water / Flowback

Screw Conveyor for solids/salts

Optional Reagent HopperFor Barium Stabilization

Solids for Disposal




Flare Gas Options

• Flare Gas Emissions are already being reviewed

• Wet scrubbing is already widely used for emission control

• Eliminating Flowback, while controlling flare gas emissions is a win/win

• 0.4 mcf of gas for every bbl




Produced Water Options

• Induced Seismicity has already created a produced water disposal under capacity

• In other areas, like the Marcellus reduced completions has reduced produced water reuse capacity

• In some areas transportation & disposal is already high




Gas Collection Issues

• In remote locations gas collection may not be cost effective

• Low gas prices may not support gas collection and evaporation complies with REC or “Green Completions” requirements



Questions ?

flare gas emission control / produced water evaporation a

Documents