Bubbler System Testing in Controlled Environment for Harsh Environment Oil Spill Recovery

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Premkumar Thodi ◽  
Vandad Talimi ◽  
Robert Burton ◽  
Majid Abdi ◽  
Jonathon Bruce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Column ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Harsh Environment ◽  
Air Bubbles ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Recovery Techniques ◽  
Oil Particles ◽  
Mechanical Recovery

Abstract Mechanical recovery techniques are used to clean up oil spills in marine environments; however, their efficiency is challenged when dealing with heavy oil, ice covered water and high sea states. Current mechanical recovery techniques are based on removing oil from the water surface, however, a significant amount of oil could remain in the water column below the surface due to turbulent ocean conditions, the density of heavy oil and oil escaping underneath the booms when the sweeping speed increases. To enhance the oil recovery effectiveness, oil particles in the water column need to be guided to the surface to be recovered by the skimmers. This paper focusses on the development of a test protocol and physical testing in C-CORE’s lab of a bubbler system for enhancing the harsh environment oil spill recovery. Air bubbles produce an upward flow in the water body, which guides the submerged particles to the surface. The air bubbles also attach to the oil particles, leading to an increase in the buoyancy and rate at which oil droplets rise to the surface. By adopting this technique for oil recovery, additional oil particles can be brought to the surface. In the study, the bubbler system was tested in both stationary and advancing conditions with medium and heavy oils. The results of the stationary and advancing tests indicate that the oil recovery ratios can be significantly enhanced by using an optimized bubbler system. Different types and configurations of bubblers were tested by varying the airflow rates and bubbler advancing speeds to determine the optimal solution. The optimal bubbler system has been observed to enhance the recovery ratio from 41.5% to 84.8% with airflow rates ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 CFM/foot. Furthermore, the effective integration of the bubbler system with a mechanical recovery system, its deployment and retrieval in a near field condition were demonstrated during tests in an outdoor tank.

A New Approach Utilizing Liquid Catalyst for Improving Heavy Oil Recovery

2021 ◽  
Vol 143 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Alarbah ◽  
Ezeddin Shirif ◽  
Na Jia ◽  
Hamdi Bumraiwha
Keyword(s):  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Heavy Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Viscosity ◽  
Recovery Processes ◽  
Reduced Viscosity ◽  
Effective Form ◽  
Recovery Techniques ◽  
Original Oil In Place

Abstract Chemical-assisted enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has recently received a great deal of attention as a means of improving the efficiency of oil recovery processes. Producing heavy oil is technically difficult due to its high viscosity and high asphaltene content; therefore, novel recovery techniques are frequently tested and developed. This study contributes to general progress in this area by synthesizing an acidic Ni-Mo-based liquid catalyst (LC) and employing it to improve heavy oil recovery from sand-pack columns for the first time. To understand the mechanisms responsible for improved recovery, the effect of the LC on oil viscosity, density, interfacial tension (IFT), and saturates, aromatics, resin, and asphaltenes (SARA) were assessed. The results show that heavy oil treated with an acidic Ni-Mo-based LC has reduced viscosity and density and that the IFT of oil–water decreased by 7.69 mN/m, from 24.80 mN/m to 17.11 mN/m. These results are specific to the LC employed. The results also indicate that the presence of the LC partially upgrades the structure and group composition of the heavy oil, and sand-pack flooding results show that the LC increased the heavy oil recovery factor by 60.50% of the original oil in place (OOIP). Together, these findings demonstrate that acidic Ni-Mo-based LCs are an effective form of chemical-enhanced EOR and should be considered for wider testing and/or commercial use.

Enhanced oil recovery techniques for heavy oil and oilsands reservoirs after steam injection

2019 ◽  
Vol 239 ◽  
pp. 1190-1211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohu Dong ◽  
Huiqing Liu ◽  
Zhangxin Chen ◽  
Keliu Wu ◽  
Ning Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Steam Injection ◽  
Recovery Techniques

scholarly journals Response Options for an Offshore Deepwater Blow-Out, A Generic Evaluation of Individual and Combined Response Strategies

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Johan Brandvik ◽  
Jørgen Skancke ◽  
Ragnhild Daae ◽  
Kristin Sørheim ◽  
Per S. Daling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Performance Testing ◽  
Similar Amount ◽  
Recovery Rates ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Modelling Studies ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Mechanical Recovery

Abstract The low oil recovery rates reported during Macondo (3–5% of the released oil) have caused discussions regarding the efficiency of mechanical recovery compared to other oil spill response options. These low recovery rates have unfortunately been used as reference recovery rates in several later modelling studies and oil spill response analysis. Multiple factors could explain these low rates, such as operational priorities, where dispersants and/or in situ burning are given priority before mechanical recovery; extended safety zones; availability of adequate equipment and storage capacity of collected oil; the number of units available; the level of training and the available remote sensing support to guide operations. This study uses the OSCAR oil spill model to simulate a deep-water oil release to evaluate the effect of different response options both separately and in combination. The evaluated response options are subsea dispersant injection, mechanical recovery, and a combination of these. As expected, Subsea Dispersant Injection (SSDI) was highly effective and resulted in a significant reduction in residual surface oil (8% of released oil volume, versus 28% for the non-response option, NR). However, using large offshore oil recovery systems also reduced residual surface oil with a similar amount (9% of released oil volume). These results deviate significantly from the efficiency numbers reported after the Macondo incident and from later modelling studies scaled after the Macondo recovery rates. The increased efficiency of mechanical reported in this study is mainly due to inclusion of updated descriptions of response capabilities, reduced exclusion zone, a more realistic representation of surface oil distribution and modelling of response units' interactions with oil, (efficient oil recovery only on thick parts of the oil slick). The response capabilities and efficiency numbers for the different response options used in this study are based on equipment specifications from multiple response providers and authorities (Norwegian Clean Seas organisation (NOFO), Oil Spill Response (OSRL), Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA), US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and others). These capabilities are justified by well-established contingency plans, offshore exercises and annual equipment performance testing with oil.

A Survey of Classical and New Response Methods for Marine Oil Spill Cleanup

1994 ◽  
Vol 31 (02) ◽  
pp. 79-93
Author(s):  
Emilio A. Tsocalis ◽  
Thomas W. Kowenhoven ◽  
Anastassios N. Perakis
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Heavy Oil Recovery ◽  
New Materials ◽  
Marine Oil ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Oil Spill Cleanup

Both classical and new marine oil spill cleanup response methods and techniques are discussed. The intention is mainly to answer the fundamental questions of when, where, and how to apply the different methods. A brief review of the stages of the oil spill response problem is first presented, followed by the factors that influence the different methods. This is followed by an analysis of some new cleanup methods and improvements to existing methods, specifically: bioremediation, the use of more efficient ships for skimming, the use of fishing nets for heavy oil recovery, and new materials and designs of sorbents. Some cases are also analyzed to evaluate the performance of some methods under real conditions.

PERFORMANCE TESTS OF FOUR SELECTED OIL SPILL SKIMMERS

1979 ◽  
Vol 1979 (1) ◽  
pp. 493-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sol H. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Water Mixture ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Recovery Efficiency ◽  
Calm Water ◽  
Light Oil

ABSTRACT From April through October, 1977, a series of oil spill skimmer performance tests were conducted at the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT), Leonardo, New Jersey. This program was sponsored by EPA, the Coast Guard, Navy, and Department of Energy combined as the OHMSETT Interagency Test Committee (OITC). The test devices selected were the commercially-available Oil Mop, Inc. Dynamic Skimmer, the Cyclonet 050 mounted on a Zodiac Inflatable boat, the Anti-Pollution, Inc. Clowsor Skimmer, and the Bennett Pollution Controls, LTD., Mark 6E Skimmer. A total of 198 test runs were performed during which each device was evaluated for recovery of two test oils through a wide range of simulated environmental conditions of waves and currents. The performance indicating parameters were: (1) throughput efficiency, the percentage of oil encountered which is collected; (2) recovery efficiency, the percent oil in the oil/water mixture collected; and (3) oil recovery rate, the volume of oil collected per unit time. The Oil Mop Dynamic Skimmer produced its highest average throughput efficiency (78 percent) with light oil (9 centistokes—cst) at a tow speed of 200 feet per minute (fpm) in calm water. Highest recovery efficiency (77 percent) was observed with heavy oil (3,000 cst) at 200 fpm in calm water, and maximum recovery rate was established with light oil at a tow speed of 400 fpm. The Cyclonet 050 showed its highest average performance with heavy oil (550 cst) at a tow speed of 150 fpm. Throughput efficiency was 34 percent in calm water, recovery efficiency was 27 percent in the 0.6 by 26.2 ft (height by length) wave and recovery rate was 14 gallons per minute (gpm) in calm water. The Clowsor Skimmer was tested as an advancing and stationary system. Highest average results occurred in the stationary mode with heavy oil (1,900 cst) and recovery efficiency was 91 percent. Maximum recovery rate observed was 95 gpm. The Bennett Mark 6E Skimmer performed best with heavy oil (3,200 cst). Throughput efficiency was 95 percent at a tow speed of 300 fpm, recovery efficiency was 88 percent at 100 fpm, and maximum oil recovery rate occurred at 200 fpm and was measured at 108 gpm. The general trend of performance for all devices tested showed diminishing performance with increased tow speeds and wave conditions.

scholarly journals Recent Approaches, Catalysts and Formulations for Enhanced Recovery of Heavy Crude Oils

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar Gaya
Keyword(s):  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Recovery Techniques ◽  
Porous Reservoir ◽  
Heavy Form ◽  
Heavy Crude

Crude oil deposits as light/heavy form all over the world. With the continued depletion of the conventional crude and reserves trending heavier, the interest to maximise heavy oil recovery continues to emerge in importance. Ordinarily, the traditional oil recovery stages leave behind a large amount of heavy oil trapped in porous reservoir structure, making the imperative of additional or enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies. Besides, the integration of downhole in-situ upgrading along with oil recovery techniques not only improves the efficiency of production but also the quality of the produced oil, avoiding several surface handling costs and processing challenges. In this review, we present an outline of chemical agents underpinning these enabling technologies with a focus on the current approaches, new formulations and future directions.

DOOSIM—A NEW SIMULATION MODEL FOR OIL SPILL MANAGEMENT

1987 ◽  
Vol 1987 (1) ◽  
pp. 529-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øistein Johansen
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Model ◽  
Water Column ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Surface Current ◽  
Wind Drift ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Graphical Presentation ◽  
As Effects ◽  
Mechanical Recovery ◽  
Number Of Particles

ABSTRACT A new oil spill simulation model has been developed as a part of the research program Dispersion of Oil On Sea (DOOS). The model includes features such as simulation of drift and fate of oil on the surface and in the water column, as well as effects of cleanup measures (mechanical recovery, application of chemical dispersants). The model utilizes the particle-in-fluid concept, where the oil spill is represented by a large number of particles in different states, i.e., on the surface, entrained in the water column, or evaporated. The near surface current shear is taken into account in the wind induced component of the drift, in terms of a two layer approach (reduced wind drift factor for entrained oil). In the design of the model, major efforts have been made to obtain a system which is easy to operate. This has led to a system consisting of three modules: one for entry of user-specified inputs, one for simulating an actual spill, and one for graphical presentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document