SPE Presentation Micro emulsions

SPE - Drilling Operations
The Environmental Challenge
The Practical Application

of Microemulsion Technology
for Waste Minimisation Offshore
www.surfaceactive.com
WHY SAS?
WHY ME Technology?
EU Env. Legislation – 16th July 2004

ÕThe ban on co-disposal of waste pursuant to the
Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC
Õ The new EU procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfill
set out in Commission Decision 2003/33/EC, and
Õ The tightening of the UK’s laws on “special” / “hazardous” waste,
all take effect during July. (Ban on liquid waste).
Remediating Oil Contaminated
(Hazardous) Solid Wastes
Landfill - Requires extensive and suitable area / logistics

- No recovery from the waste
- High cost
Land-farming / Biodegradation - Requires extensive land area / logistics
- Slow treatment process + No recovery
- Cannot degrade high concentrations of oil
Mechanical Extraction - Low throughput
- Large footprint
Thermal Distillation - High energy use + Expensive

- Health and safety risks
- Slow throughput / logistical problems
- Environmental concerns (emissions of CO2)
Solvent Extraction - Uses large volumes of organic solvents
- Health and safety risks
- Slow throughput
Emulsion Forming Surfactant - Emulsions difficult to handle + separate
Systems + Oxidation Chemicals - Lacks high levels cleaning efficiency required
Technical Details
of Surfactants
Hydrophilic “head” group
Hydrophobic “tail” group

O O
S
O ONa
Oil
MONOLAYER
Liquid Membrane
r=0
Water
Different Types of
Microemulsion System
Structure of Normal and Inverse micelles

formed in Microemulsion systems
NB. Also multiple phase systems (WI, WII, WIII)
oil
aq
oil aq
MICELLE INVERSE / REVERSED MICELLE

+ve radius of curvature (r) -ve radius of curvature (r)
Oil-in-Water WIV (O/W) Microemulsion Water-in-Oil WIV (W/O) Microemulsion

Technical Differentiation
Emulsions / Microemulsions
EMULSIONS MICROEMULSIONS
Thermodynamically unstable Thermodynamically stable

Inefficient molecular packing Efficient molecular packing
Direct oil/water contact at the interface No direct oil/water contact at the interface
Interfacial surface tension 20-50mNm-1 Interfacial surface tension 10-4 - 20mNm-1
Multiple phase only* May be single or multiple phase
Micelle diameter 20nm + Micelle diameter 3 - 20nm
Cloudy colloidal systems Optically transparent (Isotropic)
Novel chemistry
Enabling Technology
Õ Rapid + effective cleaning

Õ Creating less waste
Õ Easily managed waste
Surface Active Solutions Ltd
ME Products
ME Technology
Water based
Soluble in water / brine
Current Products
Organic solvent based
Insoluble in water / brine
Key Applications For
Microemulsions Technology
Remediation of
surface systems +
mud pit cleaning
applications
Wellbore cleanup
SAS and Solvent Based
Cleaning Comparison
Fann 35 Test Results

100.00
90.00 Competitor
80.00
Competitor
Competitor
M ud R e m ov e d (% wt)
70.00
SAS
60.00
SAS
50.00
SAS
40.00 SAS
30.00 SAS
20.00 SAS
SAS
10.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (mins)
Wellbore Cleanup
Lab Evaluations
Time 0 Competitor Result SAS Result
Time 0 Competitor Result SAS Result

Wellbore Cleanup
Case Study
Õ Waste production is reduced by over 70%

Õ There is no emulsion or slop waste formation
Õ There are no rag layers produced
Õ Brine oil in water content was reduced to below 40ppm
Õ Total oil discharged to sea reduced by 2 orders of magnitude (1.2Kg)
Wash pill + brine Oil-in-water

Returns to surface content
(bbl No.) (ppm)
1 >1000
918 15
1418 0.1
1918 0.1
2419 0.1
Wellbore Cleanup
Cost Analysis
Year Cost PMT * Cost Saving

(per well) **
2005 £200 £50K
2006 £300 £70K
2007 £400 £100K (Av)
2008 £500 £120K
2009 £600 £150K
* Cost for waste containment, transport, treatment + disposal

** Assuming reduction of waste produced by 1500bbls / well
Mud Pit Cleanup
Demonstrations
Current Product
Before SAS Treatment
After SAS Treatment

Mud Pit Cleaning
Case Study / Cost Analysis
Õ The ME Technology cleaned to brine standard – 10X more efficient

Õ The ME cleaning fluid flocculates the solids allowing recycling
Õ Forms a ME system - does not form emulsion wastes or rag layers
Õ The waste volume was reduced by over 50%
30000
25000
20000
Cost (£) 15000
10000
5000
0
Competitor SAS Waste
Chemical
Company
SAS and Solvent Based
Waste Management
Easy to manage waste

Tackle problem @ source
Almost zero waste production
CaCl2 NaCl
Summary
Õ Speed and Efficiency
- More effective at cleaning faster
- Provides better cleaning results
Õ No emulsion formation
- Produces less waste
- Waste more easily managed
Õ Potential to Split Microemulsion

- Organics released + recovered
- Clean waters produced
- Prevention Vs Cure
Õ Waste Minimisation
- Waste volume reduced by at least 70%
- Wellbore cleanup pill (50 - 200 barrels)
- Simplify operations
- Fully integrated Chemical Solution
- Sets a new paradigm
Õ Fully Integrated System / Process

- Wide ranging applications
?
Waste Drill Mud
Cuttings Treatment
Remediation of Waste
Drill Mud Cuttings
Drilling Mud Splitting
and Solids Treatment
Remediation of Waste
Drilling Mud solids

SPE Presentation Micro emulsions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE Presentation Micro emulsions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE Presentation Micro emulsions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE - Drilling Operations

The Environmental Challenge

The Practical Application

EU Env. Legislation – 16th July 2004

Landfill - Requires extensive and suitable area / logistics

Thermal Distillation - High energy use + Expensive

Hydrophilic “head” group

Hydrophobic “tail” group

Structure of Normal and Inverse micelles

MICELLE INVERSE / REVERSED MICELLE

Oil-in-Water WIV (O/W) Microemulsion Water-in-Oil WIV (W/O) Microemulsion

Thermodynamically unstable Thermodynamically stable

Õ Rapid + effective cleaning

Fann 35 Test Results

Time 0 Competitor Result SAS Result

Time 0 Competitor Result SAS Result

Õ Waste production is reduced by over 70%

Wash pill + brine Oil-in-water

Year Cost PMT * Cost Saving

2006 £300 £70K

2007 £400 £100K (Av)

2008 £500 £120K

2009 £600 £150K

* Cost for waste containment, transport, treatment + disposal

Before SAS Treatment

After SAS Treatment

Õ The ME Technology cleaned to brine standard – 10X more efficient

Cost (£) 15000

Easy to manage waste

Õ Potential to Split Microemulsion

Õ Fully Integrated System / Process

You might also like