Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2022 March 2002.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Desulfurization of natural gas by use of scavenger technology
is widely used because the gas specification can be achieved
with low investment costs (equipment) and moderate
chemical cost. However the technology has an environmental
challenge. The discharge of chemicals from the offshore
installations has been given more attention the last past years,
and Statoil is now working to implement "zero-discharge of
environmentally harmful components". The discharge of the
scavenger is the main contributor to the environmental risk at
several Statoil operated fields, and it is of importance to
reduce this risk. Statoil has established a project which has the
object to reduce the environmental risk caused by H2S
removal from the gas. In this project there has been focused on
two strategies a) reduction of the chemical consumption and b)
new environmentally friendly technology. The project has
been a co-operation between the Dynea Oil Field Chemicals,
Framo Purification and US Filter/Zimpro.
Introduction
There are an increasing number of oil- and gas fields at the
Norwegian sector which produce gas with hydrogen sulfide,
H2S. The concentration of H2S in the gas will vary from well
to well and field to field, but an average value will be in the
range 5 to 50 ppm. Some wells can have as high as 2000 ppm,
but this is rare. Due to high toxicity, corrosivity and gas
specification H2S needs be removed from the gas. There are
fairly low concentrations of H2S in the gas at the Norwegian
continental shelf, and this is one of the main reasons for the
position taken by the H2S scavengers are the dominating
technology. Statoil is using the technology at several
installations. The advantage of the scavenger technology is
that the gas specification can be achieved with low investment
costs (equipment) and moderate chemical cost. However the
technology has an environmental challenge.
The scavenger technology is an non regenerative
process, and the chemicals will mainly be discharged to the
sea. The discharge of chemicals from the offshore installations
has been given more attention the last past years, and Statoil is
now working to implement "zero-discharge of
environmentally harmful components". The discharge of
scavenger is the main contributor to the environmental risk at
several Statoil operated fields, and it is of importance to
reduce this risk. Statoil has established a project which has the
object to reduce the environmental risk caused by H2S
removal from the gas. In this project there has been focused on
two strategies a) reduction of the chemical consumption and b)
new environmental friendly technology. The project has been
a co-operation between the Dynea Oil Field Chemicals, Framo
Purification and US Filter/Zimpro.
Desulfurization by the use of H2S scavenger
The use of H2S scavengers is the dominating technology for
desulfurization of natural gas at the Norwegian continental
shelf. A simplified process diagram for this technology is
given in figure 1.

Fig.1-Process diagram for H2S removal

SPE 73957
A new Approach Towards Environmentally Friendly Desulfurization
B.Knudsen,Statoil ASA, S.Tjelle,Dynea Oil Field Chemicals, H.Linga,Framo Purification
2 B. KNUDSEN, S. TJELLE, H. LINGA SPE 73957
The scavengers which are commonly used are based
on triazines, which are the reaction products of amines and
formaldehyde. The chemicals are injected in the gas pipeline,
and injection point could be in the gas from the 1. stage
separator or the 2. stage separator or both Conventionally, the
scavenger is injected through a nozzle or a just an open pipe,
and at some installation there is a static mixer downstream the
injection point. The scavenger is water soluble and the main
fraction of the scavenger will be discharged to the sea.

Environmental risk of discharge of H2S scavenger White
Paper no 58 (1998) and the zero emission report from the
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) require the oil
and gas industry to present a strategy in 2000 for achieving
zero harmful discharges to the sea by 2005.
The environmental impact factor (EIF) (1) is the
result of an initiative by Statoil's research and development
community, which also headed its development. This
management tool makes it possible to quantify the
environmental damage attributable to existing and future
discharges to the sea. Natural critical loads for different
chemicals in these discharges are compared with the
concentrations which arise around the point of discharge.
With the aid of the EIF, measures can be prioritized
on the basis of future damage. The system is founded on
internationally-accepted methods for environmental risk
assessment, and adapted to conditions on the Norwegian
continental shelf. It forms an integrated part of regional impact
assessments and the SFT's new programme for environmental
monitoring of the water column.
Results from work with the EIF show great variations
between different fields in the potential for environmental
damage. It can also be shown which chemical components
contribute to such harm, and the tool allows the environmental
benefit of counter-measures to be documented. The tool has
been used so far on the Norwegian continental shelf to assess
emissions of produced water, but the method is being
developed to include emissions from drilling operations and
acute emissions. The method will also be adapted for use in
Statoil's international operations.
Through development and application of different
environmental risk assessment systems, the past years have
provided the possibility to better understand and predict the
potential environmental impact of produced water discharges
from offshore platforms. The development of the DREAM
(Dose related Risk and Effect Assessment Model) (2) has so
far resulted in the application of quantitative environmental
risk assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment studies,
both on a local and regional scale. DREAM is intended as a
risk assessment tool to quantify and predict the potential long-
term environmental effects of produced water discharges.
However, the present version of the model is based on the
traditional PEC/PNEC approach, where PEC is the Predicted
Environmental Concentration and PNEC is the Predicted No
Effect Concentration. The Norwegian industry and authorities,
however, wish to initiate the process to reach the zero
impact level sooner. To meet this demand, the Environmental
Impact Factor (EIF) based on major principles of risk and
hazard assessment is proposed, including the following:

1. Produced water dilution and dispersion describing the
environmental concentration (PEC). Modeling of produced
water fate for PEC calculation based on dividing produced
water into groups reflecting the content of natural and man-
added chemical compounds.
2. Risk assessment: Risk assessment (DREAM version
1.5/1.7), based on the PEC/PNEC approach. A standard set of
PNEC values for the produced water groups of chemical
compounds representing the natural occurring compounds is
established, based on available toxicity data in the literature.
For man-added chemicals, a calculation method based on the
HOCNF data (Harmonized Offshore Chemical Notification
Format) (7) is proposed. The risk assessment method/model
applied facilitates the possibility of determining the total risk
of produced water based on the summation of risk of
the subgroups.
3. Water volumes. The DREAM model calculates the total
water volume for which the PEC/PNEC ratio exceeds 1.0.
This is applied for the purpose of giving the EIF a quantitative
nature.
4. Additional weighting. The PEC/PNEC approach is based
on toxicity data from the literature. These data do not take into
account bioaccumulation and food chain transfer. Because of
these weaknesses of the PEC/PNEC approach, weighting of
certain produced water compounds is included in the EIF,
based on persistence or biodegradability and potential
for bioaccumulation.
The EIF requires a three-dimensional, time variable
concentration field for each of the produced water compound
groups as input to the PEC/PNEC determination. An example
of a concentration field for a single discharge source is shown
in Figure 2.

Fig.2-Concentration field and risk map showing different
PEC/PNEC ratios in the vicinity of a single discharge source as
modeled by DREAM
100'E
100'E
200'E
200'E
300'E
300'E
400'E
400'E
500'E
500'E
600
0'N 600
0'N
603
0'N 603
0'N
610
0'N
610
0'N
613
0'N 613
0'N
620
0'N 620
0'N
50 km
100'E
100'E
200'E
200'E
300'E
300'E
400'E
400'E
500'E
500'E
600
0'N 600
0'N
603
0'N 603
0'N
610
0'N
610
0'N
613
0'N 613
0'N
620
0'N 620
0'N
50 km
10:12:00
SPE 73957 A NEW APPROACH TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DESULFURIZATION 3
By the DREAM model it is possible to calculate the
percent contribution to the environmental risk from each of the
chemical components in the produced water. In figure 3 the
contribution diagram for the field Gullfaks C is shown, and in
this case the EIF is dominated by the H2S scavenger. For
several Statoil operating fields the scavenger is a significant
contributor to the total EIF, and in order to reduce the
environmental risk there is a need to develop better
technology for the H2S removal.



Fig.3-Pie charts showing the contribution of produced water
compound groups and process chemicals to the EIF at the fields
Gullfaks C (H2S-fjerner = H2S-scavenger).

Optimization of the injection system
One way to reduce the environmental risk of the scavenger is
to reduce the volume of the scavenger used. The efficiency,
the amount of H
2
S removed per amount of scavenger injected,
is fairly low, and there is a great potential to reduce the
consumption of the scavenger. A critical stage in the H
2
S
scavenging process is the injection system, and pilot- and field
testing show that optimization of the injection system will give
higher efficiency of the chemical. Since 1999 Statoil and
Framo Purification have carried out a joint project where the
objective has been to develop a more optimal injection system.

Comparison between different injection systems. In 2000
three different gas-liquid mixers were tested and compared in
the pilot H
2
S rig at Statoil K-lab:
The Framo Scavenger Mixer C100,
The Delavan nozzle VM 054
The combination of the Delavan nozzle and the
Sulzer mixer
The tests for the three mixer installations were run at two
operational conditions denoted series 1: 20 ppm H
2
S/15
barg/75 C and series 2: 50 ppm H
2
S/60 barg/75 C,
nominally.
For all the series HR2510 (based on triazines),
supplied by Dynea Oil Field Chemicals, has been used as the
scavenger chemical. The mixer performance is presented in
terms of the scavenger consumption (litre scavenger consumed
per kg H
2
S removed) and the degree of removal (reduction of
the initial H
2
S-concentration).

Test set-up.The scavenger injection section - configuration for
the pipeline for series 1 and 2 is shown schematically in
Figure 4 and described below.




Fig.4-Schematic test set-up at K-lab.


Gas sampling is prepared for at several sampling
points, Sn, as indicated in figure 4. In order to distinguish
between H
2
S absorption in the mixer and in the steady state
pipe flow it is necessary to measure the H
2
S-concentration at
least just downstream of the mixer, at position S1, in addition
to the positions S0 (inlet concentration) and S3 (outlet
concentration). For the comparison between the mixer systems
only H
2
S measurements at the sampling points S0 (gas feed)
and S3 (gas entering the gas-scavenger separator) will be
reported. The H
2
S-measurements are carried out by means of
Drger tubes applied to the gas collected from specially
designed sampling arrangements.

4 B. KNUDSEN, S. TJELLE, H. LINGA SPE 73957
Due to the extremely small liquid flow rates, the time
needed to gain steady state liquid hold-up and H
2
S-loading of
the liquid in the 50 m long pipeline is considerable. Thus
aiming for a specified H
2
S-concentration at the pipeline outlet
by adjusting the scavenger injection flow rate is extremely
time-consuming when stable conditions at the given flow rate
combination need to be verified. Accordingly the tests have
been run with constant liquid injection rates, typically 4 litre/h.
The gas at K-lab is dry (low water content), while in
an offshore process the water is humidified. In the experiments
run for comparing the injection systems water was added to
the gas by diluting the scavenger HR2510 with water. The
mixture ratio applied is water : HR2510 = 2 : 1.
The scavenger consumption E is expressed in terms
of litre HR2510 added per kg H
2
S removed. The consumption
E is calculated from,

( )
( )
G
L
Gout Gin S H
S H
scav
Q
Q
c c
d
M p
T R z
m
Q
E

+
=

1 10
10
273
2
2
3
5
(1)

where z is the gas compressibility, R is the gas constant, T is
the temperature [C], p is the absolute pressure [bar], M
H2S
is
the mole mass of H
2
S, d is the dilution of the scavenger
mixture, Q
L
and Q
G
are the volumetric flow rates of liquid and
gas respectively and c
Gin
and c
Gout
are the inlet and outlet H
2
S-
concentrations [mole H
2
S per mole gas], respectively. The
dilution d is defined from the volumes of scavenger, V
scav
, and
water, V
water
, applied in the mixture,

water scav
scav
V V
V
d
+
=
..(2)

The H
2
S-removal r [ % ] as listed in Tables 1 and 2 is
calculated from

( )
100

=
Gin
Gout Gin
c
c c
r
..(3)

Results. The experimental results are listed in Table 1 in terms
of nominal conditions, H
2
S-measurements and performance.
For both the pressure levels, 60 and 15 bar, approximately 30
% reduction in the scavenger consumption is obtained by
changing from the conventional mixer systems; Delavan
nozzle and static Sulzer mixer, to the FramoPure C100
injection mixer.
It should be stressed that the results apply for the
integral performance of the mixer and pipeline with respect to
H
2
S-removal. Thus, focussing on the H
2
S-removal in the
mixer section only, the difference in the mixer performances
with respect to H
2
S-removal increases significantly. This is
due to the long pipeline downstream of the injection mixer
where for the cases of Delavan nozzle and/or Sulzer mixer the
total H
2
S-removal is dominated by the H
2
S-removal during the
gas-scavenger pipeline flow. For the case of the Framo
scavenger mixer the situation is different, here the H
2
S-
removal within the mixer section compares with the H
2
S-
removal in the pipeline
Notice that the scavenger consumption values
reported should be used for evaluating the relative
performances of the different mixers tested only. When
extrapolating to larger pipe size and more favourable pipeline
geometry downstream of the injection mixer, the actual
scavenger consumption is expected to decrease.
As the scavenger consumption increases as the degree
H
2
S-removal is increased, both the scavenger consumption E
and the degree of H
2
S-removal r should be considered for
evaluating the scavenging efficiency. For the same reason the
difference in scavenger consumption between the Framo
mixer performance and the Delavan nozzle/Sulzer mixer
performance will increase if the scavenger injection rates were
tuned to arrive with a low H
2
S outlet concentration
corresponding to e.g. the pipeline specification.

Scavenger injection mixers at sgard B. Based on the
comparison between the injection mixers at K-Lab and further
tests of the turn-down capability, FramoPure C100 mixers
were chosen for the scavenger injection at sgard B. Two
FramoPure C100 units, located horizontally in series, were
installed in May 2001. A picture of one of the 24" FramoPure
mixers, prepared for shipment, is shown in figure 5.


Fig.5-A single FramoPure C100 scavenger mixer


Fig.6 -FramoPure mixer internals

No moving parts nor nozzles are installed in the mixer units.
As a qualification of the mixer design for sgard B, tests were
carried out at Statoil K-Lab focussing on maintaining high
SPE 73957 A NEW APPROACH TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DESULFURIZATION 5
efficiency at low pressure drop and at high turndown ratios.
The installation of the FramoPure mixer is considered for
several Statoil operated fields, and a FramoPure C100
injection mixer will next year replace the injection system
at Veslefrikk.

Mixer performance at K-Lab (2) compared to sgard B
(24). The FramoPure installation at sgard B (24
FramoPure injection mixers), operating at 85 barg and 95 C,
is a serial installation of two horizontally mounted injection
mixers. At K-lab a similar configuration with two 2
horizontally mounted FramoPure injection mixers, in series,
have been tested at 45 barg and 75 C.
The H
2
S-data both for sgard B and K-Lab are
included in Fig. 7 where the H
2
S-concentration for all the
cases is scaled with the inlet H
2
S-concentration.


Fig.7-H
2
S-data with serially mounted FramoPure injection mixers,
scaled with the inlet concentration. Cases: 50-50 scavenger
distribution (K-Lab and sgard) and quill (K-lab).

Notice that the position 0 m corresponds to the first horizontal
mixer (or quill) and the dashed vertical line to the position of
the second mixer (removed for the quill experiment). For the
sgard B field data only the H
2
S-data (filled circles), not the
stipulated H
2
S-profiles as for the K-Lab data are indicated.
The performance tests at sgard B were carried out
by Statoil in July 2001 with an initial H
2
S-concentration of 7
ppmv. With the injection rate applied, the outlet concentration
was measured to be below 0.5 ppmv, which is far below the
specification of 2.5 ppmv. This polishing performance
corresponds to a scavenger consumption close to 12 litre/kg
H
2
S. At comparable conditions at the offshore field Gullfaks
Statoil has recorded the consumption to be in the range 15-22
litre/kg H
2
S. Encouraged by this performance, Statoil has
reported to The Norwegian Authorities for Pollution Control
(SFT) that the FramPure installation serves to reduce the
scavenger consumption with more than 35 %.
Distributing the scavenger evenly, 50-50, between the
injection mixers, the H
2
S-removal in the two mixers are in the
same order, as expected. For the K-Lab case (exp. S3008) the
H
2
S concentration is reduced to 3 ppmv from the inlet
concentrations being 30 ppmv. With this 90 % degree of H
2
S-
removal the scavenger consumption is 10 litre/kg H
2
S. For the
reference case at K-Lab, the quill injection, exp. S3009, we
arrive at 9 ppmv with the same inlet concentration and
injection rate. The quill performance corresponds to the
scavenger consumption 13 litre/kg H
2
S, however the degree of
H
2
S-removal is 70 % only.
In order to arrive at 3 ppmv with the quill injection, it
is estimated that the pipeline (or the residence time) has to be
increased with a factor of 3. Alternatively the injection rate is
estimated to be increased with a factor of more than 5. This
demonstrates that in order to evaluate the scavenging
performance, both the degree of removal and the scavenger
consumption should be considered.
Taken into account the high degree of H
2
S-removal at
sgard B and the low scavenger consumption, the
performance at sgard B is considered as even better than the
FramoPure mixer performance as achieved at K-Lab. The data
sets from K-Lab (2) and sgard B (24) demonstrates the
scale-up capability of the injection mixers.

Conclusions. A new injection system, Framo Pure C100, for
H
2
S scavengers has been developed. The results from the pilot
tests carried out at H
2
S-enriched hydrocarbon gas flow in a 2
pipeline configuration show that the chemical consumption is
reduced by approximately 30 % with the new injection system
as compared to conventional systems of nozzles and
static mixers.
The first large scale data for the FramoPure injection
mixers as obtained from the offshore field sgard B (24
mixers) at H
2
S-polishing, reflects a very high degree of H
2
S-
removal and at a scavenger consumption which is more than
35 % lower than obtained at comparable scavenger
injection installations.

Wet Air Oxidation of the effluent
The Zimpro Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) process is a
liquid phase reaction in water using dissolved oxygen to
oxidize wastewater contaminants. The oxidation reactions
occur at moderate temperatures of 275F to 600F (150 -
315C) and at pressures from 150 to 3000 pounds per square
inch (10 to 207 Bar). The process can convert organic
contaminants to carbon dioxide, water and biodegradable short
chain organic acids. Inorganic constituents such as sulfides
and cyanides can also be oxidized.




H
2
S
-
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

i
n
l
e
t

[

%

]
distance from injection point [ m ]
6 B. KNUDSEN, S. TJELLE, H. LINGA SPE 73957
Wet Air Oxidation is used for high strength
wastewater streams prior to final biological treatment. Specific
examples include:

Ethylene and refinery spent caustic liquors
High strength petrochemical wastewater streams
Coke oven gas liquors
Other industrial waste waters

The process can also be used for the destruction of organic
sludges. The system can be field-erected or prefabricated in
modules. (Source: http://207.0.73.101/wetair-ind.htm).
A WAO process integrated in the oil/gas production
is shown in figure 8. The condensed water, containing spent
scavenger, from the scrubber will be treated in the WAO unit.




Fig. 8- Treatment of spent scavenger in a WAO process


WAO laboratory tests. There were performed laboratory
tests to test whether the WAO process could be applied for
treatment of water containing spent H2S scavenger. The
principle objectives in the treatment study performed on the
hydrogen sulfide scavenger wastewater were to:
Determine the wet air oxidation temperature and time at
temperature which is required to achieve an acceptable
destruction of triazine in the wet air oxidation process..
Determine the ammonia content of the wet air oxidized
effluent.
Determine, on a preliminary basis, applicable materials of
construction for a full-scale wet air oxidation unit which will
treat the condensed water.
Establish a preliminary characterization of the off-gas
produced by the wet air oxidation process.
All of the analyses included as a part of the wet oxidation
testing were performed by U.S. Filter/Zimpro's analytical
laboratory, Enviroscan, according to Standard Methods (3) or
EPA Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastewater (4).
The wet air oxidation tests were performed in
laboratory autoclaves fabricated from stainless steel and each
having a capacity of 750 ml. An illustration of the bench scale
shaking autoclaves used in the tests is shown in Figure 9. The
autoclaves were charged with 150 ml of waste water
containing spent scavenger and sufficient compressed air to
result in excess residual oxygen following the oxidation. The
charged autoclaves were then placed in a heater/shaker
mechanism, heated to the desired temperature (240
o
C, 260
o
C,
or 280
o
C) and held at temperature for 60 minutes. Immediately
following oxidation, the autoclaves were removed from the
heater/shaker mechanism and cooled to room temperature
using tap water. After cooling, the off-gas in the head space of
the autoclave was analyzed for oxygen, nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide and total hydrocarbons.
Subsequent to the analysis of the off-gas, the autoclave was
depressurized and opened. The oxidized effluent was
removed from the autoclave and placed into a storage
container. The effluent was then submitted to U.S.
Filter/Enviroscan for analysis.



Fig.9-Laboratory equipment for WAO testing

Results from WAO tests. Wet Air Oxidation of waste water
containing scavenger. Wet air oxidation tests were performed
at 240
o
C for 60 and 90 minutes, 260
o
C for 75 minutes, and
280
o
C for 60 and 90 minutes. The analytical results indicate
that the WAO process destroys from 86 to 94 percent of the
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) contained in the diluted
wastewater at the conditions tested. The results also indicate
that 88 to 100 percent of the nitrogen present in the WAO
treated effluent is in the form of ammonia nitrogen at the
conditions tested. The data also suggests that any sulfide
sulfur present in the untreated material is converted to sulfate-
sulfur by the WAO process.
Nitrogen and Carbon Balance in WAO Effluents. The
analytical results for the effluents of the WAO tests indicate
that there is a consistently low recovery of nitrogen when

SPE 73957 A NEW APPROACH TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DESULFURIZATION 7
comparing the amount present in the untreated
material to the amount detected in the treated wastewater. The
non-purgable organic carbon (NPOC) and COD data for the
treated effluents also indicate that there may be some
additional COD that is organic in nature which is not
accounted for in the results of the COD analysis. A possible
explanation for both the carbon and nitrogen data
inconsistencies is that there are certain types of organic
compounds that do not respond well to the COD test and also
forms of organic nitrogen that are not detected by the TKN
(Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen) analysis. These compounds may be
present in the treated material.
Materials of Construction Testing. A 100-hour material of
construction test was performed using six different alloys
which included 316-L Stainless Steel, Alloy 20CB-3,
Hastelloy C-276, Inconel 625, titanium grade 2, and titanium
grade 12. All of the tested alloys appeared to be resistant to
the process environment but from a cost comparison
standpoint 316-L Stainless Steel is the most suitable choice.

Environmentally friendly H2S scavenger
The scavengers which is most common is the one based on
triazine, which is a reaction product of amines and
formaldehyde. The product is easily biodegradable and only
moderate toxic, despite this the scavenger will have a
significant contribution to the environmental risk because of
the large discharged volumes. Dynea Oil Field Chemicals and
Statoil have developed a new scavenger based on peroxide.
When this product is used in gas sweetening process the
sulfide will be converted to sulfate and the reaction products
will only be nontoxic inorganic salts.
Hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
) is a strong oxidising agent
which converts H
2
S to SO
4
2-
.

H
2
S + 4H
2
O
2
---> SO
4
2-
+ 4H
2
O + 2H
+

H
2
O
2
is also traditionally used for H
2
S removal in
industrial and municipal sewerage systems.
All offshore experience show that H
2
S must be present as ions
(HS
-
, S
2-
) to react quickly, and therefor the pH of the product
must be high.

H
2
S + OH
-
---> S
2-
+ H
2
O

As a pure product with low pH, hydrogen peroxide is
a relatively stable product, also when mixed with water. The
degradation occurs when the products contacts contaminants,
for instance metal. Heat, high pH and light will accelerate the
degradability. The challenge is to make a stable H
2
O
2
-product
with a pH around 10.
At a high pH only trace amounts of contaminants
could lead to degradation of H
2
O
2
. To stop this reaction
occurring there is a need to stabilize the impurities along with
pH. Several products was tested. One of the products tested
gave the stability required, but unfortunately this product does
not fulfill OSPAR environmental requirements for offshore
chemicals.
The results from experiments in the laboratory and in
pilot plant show that the product has the same efficiency as the
triazine based scavenger. Further testing to find an
environmental acceptable stabilizer is ongoing.

Concluding remarks
Desulfurization of natural gas by use of scavenger technology
is widely used because the gas specification can be achieved
with low investment costs (equipment) and moderate
chemical cost. However the technology has an environmental
challenge, and Statoil has started a project where the objective
is to reduce the environmental risk. The results from the
project could be summarized as follows:

A new injection system, Framo Pure 100, for H2S
scavengers has been developed in the project. The
injection system has been installed at the sgard B
field in the Norwegian sector. Performance tests at
sgard A and in pilot plant show that the chemical
consumption could be reduced by 30 % to 35 % with
this new injection system compared to conventional
injection systems.

A new environmental scavenger has been developed.
The scavenger is based on hydrogen peroxide, and
with the use of this chemical H2S will be oxidized to
sulfate. The results from experiments in the
laboratory and in pilot plant show that the product has
the same efficiency as the triazine based scavenger.


Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) process has been tested for the
treatment of waste water containing spent scavenger
based on triazines. Laboratory tests show that WAO
is an efficient process to convert the spent scavenger
to low toxic components.

References
1. Johnson et al.,The Environmental Impact Factor a
propose tool for produced water impact reduction,
management and regulation, SPE 61178, 2000
2. Johnsen, S.,The Dose related Risk and Effect Assassment
Model (DREAM) a tool for quantifying the
environmental risk of produced water discharges to the
marine environment. Presented at the SINTEF
Environmental Modelling Seminar, Lillehammer,
Norway,1999
3. Standard Method for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19
th
Ed.,APHA,AWWA,WPCF,1995
4. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.
EPA, EPA-600/4-79-020,1979





8 B. KNUDSEN, S. TJELLE, H. LINGA SPE 73957




Table 1. Scavenger mixer comparison series 1 and 2,
Statoil K-Lab May-June 2000






















nominal conditions H
2
S-meas. performance
exp.
no.
exp.
series
mixer
identification
inlet
pressure
inlet
temp.
gas
velocity
inlet H
2
S-
conc.
injection
rate scav.
mix.
inlet H
2
S-
conc.
outlet H
2
S-
conc.
consumption consumption
rel. to ref. exp. removal
P T
inlet
U
G
c
G_inlet Q_L c
G_inlet
c
G_outlet E E/E
ref
*100 r
[barg] [C ] [m/s] [ppm] [l/h] [ppm] [ppm]
[l chem.
/kg H
2
S] [ % ] [ % ]
B1015
(ref. exp.
series 2) 1
Delavan nozzle
VM 054
+ Sulzer 60 75 10 20 4.0 18.0 9.5 26.0 100 47.2
B1016 1
Delavan nozzle
VM 054 60 75 10 20 4.0 14.0 5.0 25.8 99 64.3
B1017 1 Framo-C100 60 75 10 20 4.0 18.0 5.5 18.7 72 69.4
C1005
(ref. exp.
series 3) 2
Delavan nozzle
VM 054
+ Sulzer 15 75 10 50 4.0 56.0 25.0 32.6 100 55.4
C1010
1)
2 Framo-C100 15 75 10 50 1.3 56.0 6.7 20.5
1)
63 88.0
1)
Extrapolated performance from exp. C1010: H
2
S-concentration reduced from 42 ppm at inlet to 5.0 ppm at outlet at the same injection rate

Potrebbero piacerti anche