Solvent Operations:Lessons LearnedSolvent Leadership Series: Workshop 5

Vanessa White, Director - Recovery TechnologiesNovember 14, 2019

2

Agenda

• 9:00 am: Presentations• Alberta Innovates Welcome and Introduction – Vanessa White• Suncor Energy – Steve Forbes• Cenovus Energy – Natasha Pounder• Imperial Oil – Richard Smith

• 10:45 am: Coffee Break• 11:00 am: Question Period with the Presenters• 12:00 pm: Wrap Up• 12:15 pm: Networking Lunch

3

Clean Energy

• AI Clean Energy develops and invests in strategic research and innovation programs to achieve Alberta’s goals for energy, the environment and economic prosperity.

• We provide technical insights to the GOA on resource development, energy diversification, climate leadership and water/land polices.

• The Clean Energy supports Emissions Reduction Alberta in technical due diligence and project management.

• Clean Energy’s strength is creating the partnerships necessary to achieve the goals.

4

5

Clean Energy

Recovery Technologies Portfolio

6

7

Clean Energy Funding

• Funding ranges between $100k to $2M• Continuous Intake Process• Open Calls

• Target TRLs 3-7

Clean Energy Website: https://albertainnovates.ca/focus-areas/clean-energy/

https://albertainnovates.ca/focus-areas/clean-energy/

In Situ Solvent Operational ExperienceAlberta Innovates WorkshopNovember 14, 2019

Agenda

• Injected Hydrocarbon Technologies• Safety• Operations• Regulatory, Reporting , & Monitoring

2

“We are advancing a portfolio of in situ technologies with the potential to lower the carbon intensity of producing bitumen.”-Suncor’s Report on Sustainability, 2019

https://sustainability.suncor.com/en/innovation/in-situ-technologies

Injected Hydrocarbon Technologies

• Approx. 15%+ GHG reduction

• NCG Injection

• ES SAGD Pilot– 12 month demonstration – 10-15% solvent injection into steam– Solvent injection April 2019 on 4 Well Pairs– Investigating commercial deployment

• Approx. 50-70% GHG reduction• 20+ years of industry experiments

• In Situ Demonstration Facility (ISDF)– Optimize and test Solvent+ technology– Recently kicked off FEED– Regulatory approvals at MacKay River– Open to participation from other operators

3

Steam Enhancements Solvent+

SAGD

ES SAGD

Solvent +

Safety Above All Else

• Fire and Explosion– Area Classifications– Auto Ignition

• EHT sheath temperatures• Steam line temperatures

– High risk release scenarios

• Situational Awareness– Steam System Contamination

• Utility steam• Fugitive emissions

– Lockouts / maintenance

4

Operational Challenges

• Sub surface– Forecasting rates → surface design– Downhole chemistry → H2S, TDS,

Solids…

• Surface– Solvent in produced vapour condensing

with water -> impact on CPF– Commodity imbalance SAGD → ES-

SAGD– Inlet separation density control– High temperature separators

• Logistics– Supply– Recovery / migration– Cost (demand)

5

Regulatory, Reporting, & Monitoring

• Regulatory / Reporting– Collaboration with AER (frequency etc.)– Royalty sampling

• Monitoring– Solvent accounting vs. Ops cost– Lab requirements vs. 3rd Party– Staffing– Retrofitting

• Technology– No accurate online analyzer to measure

solvent in annulus gas (vapour or liquid) and emulsion

6

Additional Information

• https://sustainability.suncor.com/en/innovation

7

Suncor’s Report on Sustainability

Chat with us! We’re here to build and contribute to an industry network

Disclaimer

• Suncor Energy Inc. and its affiliates (collectively "Suncor") do not make any express or implied representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the statements, information, data and content contained in this presentation and any materials or information (written or otherwise) provided in conjunction with this presentation (collectively, the "Information"). The Information has been prepared solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon. Suncor is not responsible for and is hereby released from any liabilities whatsoever for any errors or omissions in the Information and/or arising out of a person’s use of, or reliance on, the Information.

8

Process Design and Safety ImprovementsRequired for Solvent Operations

Natasha Pounder

Sr. Process Engineer

November 14th, 2019

Solvent Pilots at Cenovus EnergyOverview of Foster Creek

W06 Pad• One well: W06P08• Solvent Driven Process (50-95% Solvent)

N Pad• Two Wells: NP06 and NP07• Solvent-Aided Process (3-10% Solvent)

Current Pilots at Foster Creek

Solvent Skid Overview

Unloading Skid

6

Injection Skid

Solvent Contamination - PSV Freezing

Solvent Injection Skid Fire

7Date here

Safety Issues Experienced

Solvent Contamination Issues

8Date here

PSV OverviewThermal Expansion and Blocked Flow Case PSVs on Solvent Unloading and Injection Skids

Date here 10

PSV Freezing IssuesPSVs discharge to the Solvent Bullet, variable back pressure• Farris 3800 pilot operated PSVs selected• Equipped with reverse backflow preventer

December 2017 – January 2018: • Exhaust on PSV pilot venting solvent• PSV main body then:

• wept solvent to bullet, and;• Failed to open at set pressure

Date here 11

Other Freezing IssuesDifferential Pressure Level Sensor on Solvent Bullet• False High level reading from water contamination (filling dead leg above lower PIT)• Required routine draining of dead-leg

SAFETY RISK: DRAIN VALVES CAN FREEZE OPEN!Drain was rod-able and steamer truck on standby

Flowmeters, PITs and TITs freezing, causing false trips

Date here 12

Why did the PSVs Freeze Open?Joule-Thomson effect while venting out exhaust

Filled plastic jar with solvent, wait for evaporation

• Water remaining in jar!

Potential Sources:• PSVs were pop-tested on water (vendor could not empty dome space of all water)• Equipment Commissioning• Solvent Supply:

• Trucks (cleaning of trucks; previous fluids hauled)• Loading Storage (stored in salt caverns; water used to push solvent out of cavern)

Date here 13

TroubleshootingPSVs were pop-tested on water Not likely.. Other equipment freezing too…• Have to service PSVs once venting or frozen conditions discovered

• Frozen and Venting – required to be serviced• Non-Venting could be frozen shut (no way to confirm) – proactively removed for

service

• PSVs were pop-tested on glycol only; procedure updated

Equipment Commissioning Not likely.. Level sensor was working previously…• System in operation for >2 months; any water contamination should be clear• All dead legs and low point drains were drained of potential water

SAME SAFETY RISK: DRAIN VALVES CAN FREEZE OPEN!Drains were rod-able and steamer truck on standby

Date here 14

TroubleshootingSolvent Supply: Vendor was confident it wasn’t them (No other customer has these issues)

Freeze Valve Test Kit used to trace source!

• Confirmed solvent failed freeze valve test from injection point back to truck connection

Vendor obtained Valve Freeze Test Kit - Tested tanker loading and unloading

• Every test passed on filling tankers• Tests failed on unloading tankers!

Tankers were hauling Condensates and other water-containing fluids

Date here 15

Corrective Actions1. External Heaters on PSVs First winter, to get up and running2. Ongoing Freeze Valve Testing; reject tankers that fail; new dry tanker in 24 hours3. Condition in contract: Dedicated solvent trucks4. Add heat trace to critical valves (ESDVs) and PSV inlet/outlet with temp indication lights5. Switch to non-dP based level indication (i.e. Magnetic, Guided Wave Radar)6. Update Technical Specifications to include above considerations

Solvent Injection Skid Fire

Date here 16

Solvent Injection Skid Fire

Solvent Injection Skid Overview

Sequence of Events

Risk Assessment

Root Cause Investigation

Corrective Action Next Steps

Sequence of EventsTimeline of July 20th, 2018

18

July 20th, 2018 ~ 21:45

LIGHTNING STRIKE!

20

• Several Pads tripped• Field Run Op job to check out pads prior to re-start• Drives past W06 Pad • Observes a flame• Notifies Panel Op• Panel Op Triggers ERP• Ops meet Emergency Responders• ERs evaluate area, give “all clear”• Investigating Ops enter area

What Happened Next…

21

• Investigating Ops trace vent line to source• Op Close the 3x ¼ needle valves on vents• FIRE IS EXTINGHUISHED at ~22:20

…and then…

Safe Location!

22

Safety First!• Immediate Actions Taken:

• Shut down N Pad Solvent Injection Skid• Keep W06 Pad Solvent Injection Skid shut down

Operations requests formal Risk Assessment prior to restart

Incident reported through internal Incident Management System (IMS) initiated• assigned incident low impact rating for both actual and potential risk

Risk Assessment

23

Team CompositionRisk Assessment scheduled, with a broad scope of participants:• Major Projects Process Engineer (designed the skid)• RFO Team Leads (commissioned the skid)• Site Operations (first responders of incident)• Site Facilities Engineer (involved in response to incident)• TD Operations and Facilities Engineer (operate the skid on a daily basis)

Source of ignition was unable to determined.Conducted risk assessment under assumption that one exists – regardless of how or why.

Three Impact Categories addressed: Health and Safety, Environment & Regulatory and Productive Assets.

25

Risk Assessment FindingsFirst Responders provided sequence of events and showed which vent was on fire

Reviewed P&IDs

• Packing Vent under constant pressure• No way for air ingress• Only act as a pilot light (no explosion)• Potential low impact assumption plausible

But wait....

Three vent lines, not two?

26

Where does the third vent come from?Trace the line back…. The OIL SUMP VENT!

27

Sump Vent History

Lube Oil Drainage Sump vent to atmosphere

Originally designed with candy-cane vent

Vent pooled flammable vapours at ground level

Re-tubed to “Safe Location”:

• Sufficient height for proper dispersion• Away from potential ignition sources, such as:

• Static from workers, tools, kicked rocks….

28

Risk Caused by Sump VentSump is at atmospheric pressure

Cycling in/out flow from vent during:

• Sump manual draining• Heating/Cooling with ambient temperatures

Plausible for explosive environment to exist inside the collection tank!

….venting beside a “pilot light”...

Back to the risk assessment and the potential low impact rating….

29

Risk Assessment – Abnormal Ops Risk

High

Medium

Low

30

How to get back up and running?Risk is known. Assumed that a source existed, but what are the potential ignition sources: Static discharge

• Lightning strike in proximity of pad• ~1 foot section of vent lines not properly bonded to structure

Risk Assessment Immediate & Temporary Actions:

• Evacuate Solvent skid when Storm Warning in effect• Signage on skid to indicate this• Directive in eLog to communicate

• Replace plastic support for vent lines with a metal support

IMS – Root Cause Investigation

31

32

Causal Mapping

Traditional Five-Why format, start at the end of the story and work your way back.

All Four Goals are impacted by an Explosion

Only the Safety Goal has the People in the Area risk

Need to keep asking why:• Why was there potential for an explosion?• Why are people in the area?

33

Potential for ExplosionBefore there is an explosion there is:• Explosive Mixture (Fuel Source + Air Source)• Ignition Source• Proximity between Explosive Mixture and

Ignition Source

From Risk Assessment and Investigation, found three different potential root causes• Solvent venting from packing EM• Solvent venting from lube oil sump EM• Not properly bonded structure IS

Evaluated, but not considered root causes:• Lightning strike, static discharge IS• Sump vent beside packing vents P

34

People In the AreaReview of Timeline showed there were 7 Emergency Responders and 6 operators• Might be a high impact during operations, but this incident an extreme impact potential!• Why were so many people required?

• No formal procedure for operator response to a Fire (only to H2S/LEL)

35

Prevention of Repetition is Key!How to prevent re-occurrence?

1) Keep the Solvent in the Processa) Don’t let the packing vent

• Vendor and manufacturer recommendations of light-end hydrocarbon pump solutionsb) Don’t let Solvent leak into the oil

• Solution to the a) solves b)2) Ensure 1) solutions are included in Design Specs3) Properly Bonded Skid

• Already resolved due to Risk Assessment4) Keep People Out of the Line-of-Fire

• Update Ops Procedure for H2S/LEL response to include Fire Response• 1 person in, 1 person on standby and 1 on man-watch

Measuring produced solvent at a commercial thermal solvent project

SLS Solvent Group

Richard Smith

November 14, 2019

2

Outline

• IOL solvent process

experience

• pilot vs commercial process

• Solvent measurement

methods and scope

• Experiences and challenges

with solvent measurement

• Update on Mahihkan North

(MahNo) LASER project

MahNo

LASER

LASER - Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhanced Recovery

3

IOL Experience with Thermal Solvent Processes

Pilots:

• LASER: 8 wells

• SA-SAGD: 2 well pairs

• Solvent Assisted-SAGD

• Both processes use diluent as solvent

Commercial LASER Projects:

• First commercial trial 2007-2015:

• 10 pads

• 240 wells (deviated only)

• ~960 acres

• MahNo 2017 start-up:

• 9 pads

• 210 wells (deviated and horizontal)

• ~4650 acres

SA-SAGD Pilot

LASER Pilot

LASER

Commercial

4

Solvent Measurement: Pilot vs Commercial

• Pilots

• Typically greenfield – fit for purpose design for solvent separation and sampling

• Redundancy for flow rate and sampling

• Dedicated pilot team with high ratio of oversight (Ops & Eng.) to well count

• High sampling frequency

• LASER Commercial Process

• Brownfield application

• Fit solvent measurement systems into existing facilities

• High well count

• compromise on sample frequency

• scope makes surveillance oversight more challenging

• Solvent injection optimization

• Automated solvent accounting algorithms

• Database surveillance tool to aid QA/QC and stewardship process

5

SA-SAGD Pilot Solvent Process Flow

• 2 Well Pairs

• Diluent is used as solvent

• Diluent is trucked to the pad and

metered, as-delivered, into the onsite

storage tank

• Total mass flow of diluent is metered,

while in the liquid phase, after the

injection pump

• Heated and flashed diluent injected is

metered separately for the toe and

heel injection strings

• Diluent produced up the tubing is

sampled and metered at each stream

of the 3-phase test separator

• Diluent vented up the annulus is

sampled and measured at the vent

gas separator

6

MahNo LASER Solvent Injection

• For the LASER pilot and 1st commercial trial diluent was

piped directly to each pad

• At MahNo, diluent is injected into the steam trunkline at

the Diluent Injection Station (DIS)

• Injected diluent is metered at the DIS

• Individual well injection rate calculations adjusted for

multi component flow (steam and diluent) and prorated

back to DIS volume

7

LASER Diluent Measurement: Pad Level

• 3 sample locations:

1) Production groupline

2) Vent gas

3) Vented liquid

• Lab Analysis

1) Groupline: GC C30+ and density

2) Vent Gas: GC C7+3) Vented liquid: GC C30+ and density

• Periodic samples

• Weekly transitioned to bi-weekly

• Full set of samples is 27:

• 9 pads with 3 samples each

8

LASER Diluent Measurement: Groupline

• Group line C30+ Method

• Diluent mass fraction derived from the L+M

fraction accounting for bitumen overlap

• Density correction applied

• Fractionated diluent density model used to

convert to volume fraction

L M H L or M

9

LASER Diluent Measurement: Vent Gas

• C4-C6 components above CSS baseline counted as diluent

10

LASER Diluent Measurement: Vent Liquids

• Diluent mass flow rate determined from Coriolis meter and the lab measured

dilbit hydrocarbon density using a two phase density model (water & diluent)

• C30+ GC used to correct for overlap with bitumen

• Fractionated diluent density model calibrated to the lab density measure is

used to convert to volumetric rate

mH = Mt (1/rmix – 1/rw) / (1/rH* – 1/rw)

11

Transition from CSS to LASER

• As pads transition from CSS to LASER, we see evidence of the solvent being reproduced

• Groupline samples show that the produced fluids contain more light ends

12

Transition from CSS to LASER

• Vented gases have an increase in C4, C5, C6

• Vented liquid hydrocarbons have more light and medium fraction components

13

Solvent Production Surveillance

• Large amount of sample and process data requires automation to maintain

• Sample analysis automated load into database by production accounting

• Solvent volume algorithms for each stream run automatically

• Tableau dashboard allows easy review of raw sample data and calculated volumes

• Dedicated team doing weekly optimization and monthly QC reviews

14

Sources of Uncertainty in Solvent Measurement

Sampling

• Sampling frequency / missed samples / poor samples

• Evidence of phase separation in groupline

• Inherent GC analysis error

Flow Rates

• Production testing uncertainty proportionally impacts groupline diluent volume

• Vent gas and vented condensate rate measurements

Algorithms

• Uncertainty in assumptions and correlations

Operational Challenges

• Baseline light ends produced

• Well venting practices can impact diluent distribution within facilities

• Vented liquid separator level control

15

MahNo Baseline CSS pad Groupline Diluent

• Baseline CSS light ends in produced fluids are higher early in the cycle than the LASER

pilot control pad

• MahNo pads operated at higher P & T than the pilot

• expect more steam stripping of native diluent from the bitumen

• Baseline profile is removed from measured diluent at LASER pads

16

Groupline Samples - Plugging

• Some issues with getting good samples from the groupline

• Sampling apparatus tubing can plug resulting in low sample volumes

• Tends to result in high light ends in the sample compositional analysis – overestimates

produced solvent volume

• Theory that pressure drop through partially plugged lines is resulting in flashing of light

ends into sample cylinder

• Fixed by increasing the size of the tubing to ¾ “

Fraction of lighter ends increase

when low sample volumes collected

17

Sample Frequency

• Started with weekly samples to capture variability in solvent production

• Switched to bi-weekly in early 2019

• Demonstrated limited change in cumulative diluent volumes

• Range from -10% to +3% with all three streams accounted for

Example of Weekly to Bi-Weekly Sampling Impact – Groupline Only

18

Produced Diluent Volumes – Inherent Noise

• Pad level calculated produced solvent rates tend to be noisy

• Source of noise includes calculated solvent mass fraction and process rate

fluctuations

• The average relative noise is +- 10%with a Std Dev of 20.1%

• Based on a 9 day central point running short term average (STA)

19

Groupline Samples – Phase Separation

• There is evidence of phase separation in the groupline

• Samples taken from the top of the pipe tend to be lighter

• Tested impact with 7 sets of 3 point samples (top, mid, bottom of pipe) from

different pads

• Calculated diluent volumes using geometric average suggest mid sample

point underestimates diluent volume by 7-12%

Sample compositions showing phase separation

20

Liquid Condensate Leg – Gas Interference

• Some issues with level control in the liquid trap separator observed when liquid density

drops below ~700 kg/m3

• Two-phase (water-diluent) density model breaks down when gas interferes

• Results in over prediction of diluent in liquid leg

• Modification of level control limits improves performance

• Surveillance important to identify and correct diluent volumes

21

• Cycle 1 injection started May 15 2017

• Diluent injection complete at 7 out of 9 pads

• Target diluent ratio (vol dil/vol stm) met or

exceeded on most pads

• Last two pads have CSS control wells

Mahihkan North LASER – Diluent Injection

PadTarget

(%v/v)

Actuals

(%v/v)

H51 5.0 5.7

H57 5.0 5.0

H58 3.0 3.8

H59 5.0 3.5

H62 5.0 4.8

H65 - 2.3

H68 5.0 4.0

H69 3.0 3.8

Fluid Volume (1000 m3)

Steam ~9000

Diluent ~350

Injected Diluent Ratio by Pad:

Cumulative Injection:

Producer Only

Diluent Ratio

22

• Early performance is in line with

current expectations

• More time is needed to fully assess

LASER uplift

Mahihkan North LASER – Production

Fluid Volume (1000 m3)

Hydrocarbon 969

Diluent 84

Cumulative Production:

23

Summary

• Solvent production measurement is challenging with various sources of

uncertainty

• In a large scale commercial solvent project it is necessary to have a dedicated

team using automated algorithms and surveillance tools and regular data QC to

increase confidence in solvent production measurement

Coffee BreakSolvent Leadership Series: Workshop 5Solvent Operations – Lessons Learned

Question PeriodSolvent Leadership Series: Workshop 5Solvent Operations – Lessons Learned

Steve Forbes, SuncorNatasha Pounder, CenovusRichard Smith, Imperial

Wrap Up and Networking LunchSolvent Leadership Series: Workshop 5Solvent Operations – Lessons Learned

14

DICE Website: https://albertainnovates.ca/programs/digital-innovation-in-clean-energy-dice/

Clean Energy Website: https://albertainnovates.ca/focus-areas/clean-energy/

Contact Us

https://albertainnovates.ca/programs/digital-innovation-in-clean-energy-dice/https://albertainnovates.ca/focus-areas/clean-energy/

Solvent Operations:�Lessons LearnedAgendaClean EnergySlide Number 4Clean Energy Recovery Technologies PortfolioClean Energy FundingIn Situ Solvent Operational Experience�Process Design and Safety ImprovementsSlide Number 10Coffee BreakQuestion PeriodWrap Up and �Networking LunchContact Us