The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCO 119Conservation Order Cover Page XHVZE This page is required for administrative purposes in managing the scanning process. It marks the extent of scanning and identifies certain actions that have been taken. Please insure that it retains it's current location in this file. _)_ _J ~_ Conservation Order Category Identifier Organizing RESCAN Color items: [] Grayscale items: [] Poor Quality Originals: [] Other: NOTES: DIGITAL DATA [] Diskettes, No. [] Other, No/Type OVERSIZED (Scannable with large plottedscanner) [] Maps,~ ~~Other items OVERSIZED (Not suitable for plotter/scanner, may work with 'log' scanner) [] Logs of various kinds [] Other BY: ,.~ARIA Scanning Preparation Production Scanning Stage I PAGE COUNT FROM SCANNED DOCUMENT: PAGE COUNT MATCHES NUMBER IN SCANNING PREPARATION: ~ YES Isl" "' NO BY: Stage 2 IF NO IN STAGE 1, PAGE(S) DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND: ~ YES NO (SCANNING IS COMPLETE AT THIS POINT UNLESS SPECIAL ATTENTION IS REQUIRED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PAGE BASIS DUE TO QUALITY, GRAYSCALE OR COLOR IMAGES) General Notes or Comments about this Document: 5/21/03 ConservOrdCvrPg.wpd STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTI, IF_.HT OF !,IATIIRAL RESO[/qCFS DIVISIOH OF OIL A!~F) GAS Alaska Oil and ~as Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine qrive Anchorage, Alaska q0501 Re: The application of ~Jnion Oil ) Company of California for an amend- ) ment to Rule Ho. 2 of Conservation ) Order Mo. 103 to authorize flarin.q ) or venting of casinghead gas from ) The Trading Bay Field in cases of ) emergency or operational necessity. ) Conservation r)rder Itc. II§ Tradinq Bay Fie Id !~iddle Kenai ~,q"', ':"P,~','~rl" and ~'E~''' Qil Pools Hemlock Oil Pool ~'G" HE Oil Pool Hem lock ME Oil Pool Aug~st 21, 1073 IT APPEARING THAT I. Union Oil Company of California submitted the referenced application dated February 8, 1073 on behalf of itself and Marathon Oil Company. 2. Notice of pt~blic hearing was published in the Anchorage Daily Hews on February 13, 1973. 3. An emergency order was written to permit flarinr4 of some plant gas be- cause its l iqt~ids were condensing in the Cook Inlet gas System making it inoperable. The emergency order expired at 7:00 AM Februarv 24, 1973. 4. A public hearing was held on February 23, 1~73 in the Community Center Building, Anchorage, Alaska at which time the applicants were heard. 5. Conservation Order Fi les Nos. 110 and 120 both pertain to the same problem and were combined. 6. The 0il and Gas Conservation Committee oral Iv issued the substance of Rules Nos. I, 3, 4, and a portion of Rule hip. 2 of this order during the hearing. FINDINGS: I. A 0ipeline has been completed to carry casinc~head gas produced from the referenced pools and other pools to the ~.4ikiski area on the east shore of Cook Inlet. 2. The volume of casinghead gas produced from the referenced pools is about I/3 of that anticipated when the line was designed, resulting in less refrigeration betn,q developed by gas drying equipment, and resultin.q in the residue gas being rich in heavier hydrocarbon components. Conservation Order ( I ID Page 2 August 21, I q73 3. l]nforeseen retro.qrade condensation of residue .qases in the mipeline has resulted in liquids accumulatinfl in the lowest ~ortion of the line and has caused surging of fluids, exceedinq the design capacity of liquid recovery and storage facilities at the eastern terminus of the line. 4. Flaring of some of the rich vapors from the denropanizer equipment at the West Foreland onshore facility results in reduced pipeline condensation. 5. Ilo beneficial use exists for most of the variable volume of liquids and flash-stabilized qas available at the eastern terminus of the pipeline. 6. Alternative methods of eliminatin,q the condensation problem or of bene- ficial ly uti lizing flared gas have been considered hy the operator and studies are continuing. CONOLUS IONS: I. The unforeseen condensation of hydrocarbon gases in the Cook Inlet gas pipeline has necessitated flaring a small amount of gas from the West Fore- land onshore facility to allow an uninterrupted flow of the residue gas through the pipeline to the ~.~ikiski onshore area. 2. A reasonable period of time is required to determine the most feasible method of eliminating the condensation problem or of beneficially uti lizing flared gas and to acquire and install necessary eouipment. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: Rule I. Rule 2 of Conservation Order Ho. 103 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Effective no later than 7:00 AM A.S.T. November I, IC~72, the flaring or venting of casinghead gas from the Trading Bay Field is prohibited except for the amount necessary for adequate safety flares or emergencies or as may be authorized by the Committee in cases of operational necessity exceeding g6 hours." Rule 2. Any flaring or venting of gas in excess of 15 days per calendar quarter per platform, other than that required for safety, shall require Committee approval. Flaring or venting of gas in excess of the volume required for safety at a location other than a platform shall be deemed to have taken place at each platform. Rule 3. O, ommenclng with the calendar quarter beginning October I, 10.73, the operator of each platform or facility in or serving the referenced pools shall report in writing to the Committee the number of days gas was flared or vented in excess of the volume.required for safety, the reason for the flaring or venting, and shall identify the platform or facility. The report shall be submitted within 30 days following each calendar quarter. Rule 4. Flaring of gas from the depropanizer overhead as required to avoid condensation of excess liquids in the Cook Inlet ~as Pipeline System is authorized until 7:00 AM ADST, ~.~arch 24, 1973. Conservation Order Page 3 Au,qust 21, 1973 Rule 5. The Committee may extend Rule 4 of this order by administrative approval or approvals but not beyond 7:r)O A~ September I, In73. .r~OHE at Anchoraqe, Alaska, and dated Auqust 21, In73. Thomas R. i~ar~all, Jr., Executive Secretary 1 Alaska r)i and GAs Conservation Committee Concur fence: · ~omer L. Burrell, .,haiman Alaska Oil and gas Conservation P, ommittee Alaska Oil and P~as Conservation Committee August 14, 1987 Telecopy No. (907) 276-7542 A D M I N I S T R A T I V E A P P R 0 V A L N O. 119.5 & 120.30 Re: Request for extension, pursuant to Rule 2 of Conservation Orders No. 119 amd i'-20 to permit the flaring of gas for more than 15 days per calendar quarter for all platforms producing to the onshore Trading Bay Production Facility. Thomas R. Brooks Environmental & Safety Supervisor Marathon Oil Company P. O. Box 102380 Anchorage, AK 99510 Dear Mr. Brooks: The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has considered your request for extended flaring days during the third and fourth calendar quarters due to the extensive repairs necessary to the Cook Inlet Gas Gathering System 16" pipeline which ruptured on August 11, 1987. It is understood that the gas flared at the Trading Bay Production Facilitie.s is associated gas from the'fOur McArthur River Field platforms (Grayling, Dolly Varden, King Salmon, and St~eelhead) and from the Trading Bay Field, Monopod platform. The Commission finds that associated gas flaring until pipeline repairs are completed is an operational necessity. The Commission hereby approves flaring up to 15 MMSCF per day at the onshore Trading Bay Production Facility which commenced on August 11, 1987 and will. end on September 25, 1987, or when the pipeline'and all facilities have been restored to operational status. Administrative Approval No. 119.5 & 120.30 August 14, 1987 Page 2 It is understood that the flare volume will be metered and is subject to AS 4~.55.020(e). Sin¢.erely, ,.~'." /.' v"' f.: _,..? ..... !\,, ~.,,' . ,./,,..~'-~ .......... ,.~_~. ~ X.~---~ Lonnie C. Smith Co~issioner jo/3.AAll9 c: Robert T. Anderson, Unocal Tom Wellman, ARCO Alaska, Inc. August 27, 1981 Re: Request for the flaring of gas beyond the 15 days for the third quarter of 1981 for the Trading Bay Production Facility. Mr. J. A. Barnes Associate Production Engineer Marathon Oil Company P. O. Box 2380 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Dear Mr. Barnes Tile req%lest of Marathon Oil Company, dated August 27, 1981, for an extension of 10 days for gas flaring in the third quarter of 1981, due to unforseen mechanical problems with equipment at the Trading Bay Prod. uction Facility is hereby granted. Yours very truly, Harry W. Kugler z Commi ssi one r BY 'THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION CO~,~..~ITTEE May 31, 1973 A D M I N I S T R A T I V E A P P R O V A L N O. 1t9.3 Re'. ,Request for extension pursuant to Conservation Order No. 119 to permit the flaring of casinghead gas from the depropanizer overhead originating from the Trading Bay Oil Field as required to avoid condensation of excess liquids in the Cook Inlet Gas System. Mr. Robert T. Anderson District Land Manager Union Oil Company of Californ. ia 909' W. 9th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Anderson:, An extension ~f~0r the referenced :request ia hereby granted u,nti! 7:00 AMt;,~ ADST, September i, 1973. Very truly yours Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Execut i ye Secretary Oil and Gas Conservation Committee April 30, 1973 Re: Request for extension pursuant to Conservation Order No. 1t9 to permlt the flaring of castnghea.d gas from the depropanizer overhead originating from the Trading Bay 011 Field as required to avoid condensation of excess liquids in the Cook Inlet Gas System. Mr. Robert T. Anderson Dlstrtct Land Manager Unio~ Oil Company of California. 909 W. 9th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Anderson': A.n extensi.on for the :refsrenced request is hereby granted unit 7:00 AM, AD'ST, Jun.e t., t973. Very tra, ly yours, ?;?" :,.,, :,::' ,?' Thomas R. Marshai I, Execut t ye Secretary Oil and Gas Conservation Committee March 23, 1973 Arp,-4wL( 117.1 Re: Request for extent ion pursuant to Conservation Order go. 119 to permit the flaring of casinghead gas from the depropanizer overhead originating from the Trading Bay Oil Field a9drequired to avoid condensation of excess liquids In the Cook Inlet Gas System. Robert T. Anderson DIstrict Land Manager Union Off Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue Anchorage :, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Anderson , An extension Or the referenced: request is :hereby granted until 7:00 1 AMp Ma"J, 1973. Very truly yours, 14, Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Cxecutive Secretary Marathon Oil Company October 30, 1987 Alaska~ strict Production United States RO. Box 102380 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone 907/561-5311 Mr. Lonnie C. Smith Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 Re: ' & 120.30 CIGG~ Pipeline Repair Dear Mr. ~smith: On August 14, 1987, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issued to Marathon administrative relief to extend flaring days during the third and fourth calendar quarters due to extensive repair of the Cook Inlet Gas Gathering SYstem. Repair of the CIGGS was successfully completed and associated flaring of natural gas from the McArthur River and Trading Bay Fields was ceased on October 7, 1987. During the period August 11 to October 7, 1987, a total of 331,354 MSCF of gas were flared. Also, there were a total of 53 flaring days for this period. The maximum flaring rate did not exceed 15 MMSCFD. Marathon 'extends its appreciation to the AOGCC for your cooperation during this unfortunate event. If you should have any questions or require addi- tional information, please call me at 564-6350. Sincerely, THOMAS R. BROOKS Environmental & Safety Supervisor DEB:cas:ES8:55 RECEIVED Alaska OiJ & Gas Cons, Commissioi} Anchorage Marathon Oil Company August 14, 1987 Mr. Lonnie C. Smith, Commissioner Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaski, )istrict Production United States RO. Box 102380 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone 907/561-5311 Dear Mr. Smith: On August 11, 1987 the Cook Inlet Gas Gathering System ruptured approxi- mately two miles southwest of McArthur River (West Forelands), releasing natural gas into the atmosphere. As an operational necessity, the CIGGS line was blocked and incoming gas from offshore wells is being flared at our Trading Bay Production Facility. A 96-hour verbal authorization to flare was received from Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission on August 11. Repair of the rupture and other sections of concern will commence about August' 16, 1987 and is anticipated to continue through September 25, 1987. To maintain production status, it will be necessary to flare gas at Trading ~Bay until repairs are completed and the line is re-commissioned. This flaring activity, however, will exceed our maximum allowable rate and duration for this quarter. Therefore, Marathon requests a Special Permit to flare natural gas at our Trading Bay Production Facility for the duration of the repair and inspec- tion operation. We anticipate a flare rate of 15 MMCFD. Attachments I, II, and III present a description of the proposed project. Should you have any questions, please call me at 564-6350. Sincerely, TItO~kS R. BROOKS Env±ronmental & Safety Superv±sor cas:ES7:65 RECEIVED AUG 1.~. 1987 7~ Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ATTACHMENT I C M , I'~-RGFE,~L l_l The 16" Cook Inlet Gas Gathering System (CIGGS) requires the repair of a~ rupture shown on Attachment II. Repairs will also be made to the two Gr:~~'~-~ #2 locations shown on Attachment II. In addition, Grade #1 problem are may be dug and surveyed. TIME FRAME The planned start date is August 16, 1987 with the project anticipated to be completed on September 25, 1987. Mobilization to the rupture is esti- mated at 3 days. Each repair is estimated at 5 days. Survey work is estimated at 1 day per location. WORK PLAN Mobilization/Demobilization to/from Site Heavy equipment will be mobilized, by barge up McArthur River to the CIGGS right-of-way. The equipment (2 backhoes) will be offloaded and proceed to the rupture location utilizing steel mats. If low water levels prevent the barge from reaching the CIGGS right-of-way, the.barge would go up river as far as possible and await ADF&G personnel to clear an appropriate access route to the right-of-way. Additional materials and equipment to include: pipe; a compressor; two welding machines; and various miscellaneous equipment will be mobilized to the job site by helicopter from a barge anchored offshore. Ail helicopter traffic will maintain a minimum flying distance of 1500 feet over the pri- mary waterfowl habitat identified in Attachment III. Personnel will be mobilized and demobilized from Marathon's Trading Bay Production Facility. Personnel helicopter traffic will not be over primary waterfowl habitat. Demobilization will occur in the reverse order of mobilization. Site Preparation Once on location, the CIGGS line will be excavated. The hole will be dewatered by pumping to the marsh. Pipeline Repair New sections of pipe or sleeves will be inserted in damaged or suspect sections as appropriate. Pipeline coating will be placed and the pipe tested. Clean-Up The excavation will be backfilled and restored to original grades. RECEIVED AUG lJ) 1987 Alaska 011 & Gas Cons. Oommlss Anchorage ~E~SO~EL ~QuZ~ED About ten people will be at the job location. EXCAVATION QUANTITIES About 270 cubic yards of material will be excavated at each location. RECEIVED AUGI~ 1987 Alaska 011 & Gas Cons. Comm~ion Anchorage - 2 - S..t a.t e) me i ab ',\ ndinll L~ ~.,.; ..... ,'. · .,',, i' ,. ,.,',, ,' ,. ,,.il, ,,,,':,,."\ , '," .,,. : · """" ',"L'""/! '' ' ,."1 · ~ '~ · "" .,..,~",,~, [.,., :..' . .,,,,,;..... , .,..,..,q....,.. ,,..,:.,..... ,. · ' I% . th---.."",' .~,~ '"~., "' T i ~ t ";.' ., .,. .. ?,,..,,. ..... . . ..~, ..x. ',.?.x~. ~ ' . '." " I- L..", ': } ..~'~" v-; ;.,,~ ,, "": ....... ,.....,~ ,, ,',-. · .~ '..· · .,.; ;; ,, . ...,,,, '..... ,. ',,.,~, .~ ,,,_- ,~, .,.;,.... , , ., ., .., .,,.. ~~,~ , ..?,.- , i,~:,,,~.,.~,... ,,..,, ,. ..~l,., ! ,,,,' , .... :.',,' i'"~,... !, "' . ....... ,, .., · ,, '1 '"" ...... '"'""' '" ..... -....:.?.:..i./.,~:.,.:!...:.,.i.,, . . .. . ,, ~, , ,, ., , , o, , :,, ,, I,,! ,, '. ',, .. :, 4' ' "~ ",,,, ~', :"', ' :...../ " ' " '.. '"; ' ,"' I ' ; '' ' "% ~'2 '/ · ' ',, ' ''~, ~,~ · ' ' ,' '" I.~,~. ':/ I' ' ' · ' /) ' ~ " · .,~..'" "~"" '""'"""'""' " " L / ........ . · , . . . . ,. ~, . , . ',,) :/" '"'; .... ";""v~'"" '--:."""';' '-'~ ........ ~' .... I'." ',"-' ..... '"~,,'~." ' '- -.'" ! · (',. · "', ~. " , %' I,. ,:,,, ,,,a~. ,..,,-. '" '~ ' ",;""'-'" ,"' ,' .... ' ,'. I;" ' '~ /' ~ / "'/' , '....:. /. ./ · i", ' "'?". ', "' '.'"" '"' '.'1"-. \ ~ ..... -' .... '1 ',"~'"'.~;;-"""'~ '· "' ". : ' ' ,---. / '~ .... ,..? .it · ..:...... . -.,.,.I ........ ~ ~ ' ' , ..,,, . ..., .... . ...... " / /' R.~I 'W '. ' ' ' ~-'"'" ~., ! · L ~/, ,., ! ,. -., · '. '_ .' .; _._ ,, _,---~'""m'-'"' ......... ,. ,..,, ,,,. I,,~,,,.~ . ..' · I" ..,~,... '~--~.~. ,' ,~, ....,,:.:..':" , ...... , .... . . ,, .,. :., ,,.., ........ ,, . .... :...~ ,~ .,1' -" ·., ,,, · . · · , ~ .... ! , ,. , ,,,. · .. ! ~, , · 3 /.. ,.....,! · . ~,. , · ?' ·., · "/; / . / .-,ll~ ' . ;, , r'$ ' .,,~. ,.-:'.. " ..... '"' ~ '"' ..... ~ ~ .,,~/",','.',',, ,.',..', i'" .., ,'".' '.1 """~ . ~' , N,, ; · . ~%, , .,,~,~... .... ,,.'. ..... ,.:. ,, ~,~;. © ,...'F.~.... ". ~ ~" .',. ' :"" '..' .". ' r;, ", ;"' '" "' " ~' : I"" "'" ' --- ' (b " 33'" / ' · ~. ' ~ ' '~" " ' " '" ! " ' i~''' ,.--'~1~,,,. .... ..,, . ,.., ., ,....,,,. ...... -,.,-,,,. .,., ... , /-,,. :~'~. ..,!. .... {f "' ' ' ' "'i'"" - ~.. . ....'." ,"'"' -' .... .i.'. . ~,~ " ' ~' ' .h ! - J .....P' I ..... .,, - ,!:'T'/:"'.T,; ...........~"' .... :" ' ~ ,.,, ..,.. :,..,, .. /;.:,. ,... , ,'," i' , , , , ... '. '~. 'i ... ', '' .... ' :" :'.':.. .' ':..', "..':;~'":.'.'..'i'?.'L: .."'i"i.'::,'!:::' ' '. : SCALE 1 ' 250,000 . : '!~ " ::'i, ' '"' ' ::,,' " ' ': :?. , ' ;i,, .; , ',,,'?, ;,':',,,.,',~ ' ' ' . " .'..... . ;'; ' . . i. ..':': .... "' :"~.!'i... . ,, '" . · ..:""' "::i.." '" .,.' , '.'.i.:.' '. .... ' " ' : ' ;' ' "' "': "::: ~' "" 10 ..' :'.i '.' ~, , ,'' '' :, ~ . ~ '' ' , ' ~ I" , , ,., ~ ,, .,, , ,I -- ~ .......---~---....-~- ~, ., ' , ' ~ ' " ,;, '- ' ' , , '·m~ ~<, ~ ,' (,J ,':' ," ............. .... , ........ 5 'F ~ ------------: ' '..:..':. '.......RECEi " ' "BA ' . ... .... : VED :. . .. , .. .::....,. ,..::..:.. . ..:.TRADING . ..:. ......... llJ~l;3t! IJ~4~ll ~ . ' '" ': ' ' ' ' ' ' :" ~' "' '..' . ' ~" 0 -~ ' - --- - ' ~ ~'~;'; ':: . ,.,,.. , . ~ .., .,, .,,,.... . ,,, .: . ^,.,,,.,. ;~/_ .,,,,,~.. , . State Game Refuge ...,:.: ..... ,, .... . .. , , ,~ ,, , : ..,, ,, ~., ,,, , , ,, ,, ,,, · ~, , , ~,; ~, ,.,:,,' ,~,,,,,:,, , , ,,,; ,,.~: .... , , ,, ,: , . n,~. ...... , ~ ..... /"",uL3 J.-,/7. Z~B.:;I' ...... ., ;;.;...~ ' .-., .; ........ ' .... ~ ..... ; . ,~ ........ ~ .... , ', ..,.,, ~ ~,. ~'. 8,3 ..................... .. .....~ .... , ., :! .~.....~ .... t,::..,,: :,~ JULY l g ..... ,, ....: .................. ~ " ' ' ' ..... ' ' ' ......~ .... '' ~" " ";' ....... '' ' ..... ' '" '' ~ ;' "i'( ~ " '' "~'~ ~*"-"~ '~" t,,, ........... , ,,~ . , , . ................. . .............. ,~ . ' ,' , ,', , ,' , '~ .l,". · ",.,,~, ;.' ,~,"i ~, ' , , . , ,: :. : ,, ,, .,, .,.., , , ', : ~, ,, ,~,,. ',,,:~ :.~ ~:~,, '. ,.,,.,,;, .; ~. .... :. , ,. : I,~ .... ::t,, ~;~ ., · . ..... - .rnmissm .... : :,. , I , · ' ' , . ~ . ;.'; Anchorage' ?.i, ". '. ' ".! "." :'..':":i..::.~':;.'.:~'.~.:: ~ :'...".!; · ' . · ' . ' ' ............ iii . Anch~' ' Division Produ;~.,. ~,~ Operations, U.S. & Canada Marathon Oil Company P.O. Box 2380 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone 907/274-151! Mr. Russ Douglass Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 EXCESS FLARE - Trading Bay Production Facility Dear Mr. Douglass: As of August 27, 1981 the Trading. Bay Production Facility will have accrued fifteen days of excess flare in the third quarter of 1981. Twelve of the fifteen days are due to unforeseen mechanical problems. Specifically the AC #3 generator shutdown (8/15 to 8/18) and the Regeneration Gas Blower shutdown (8/20 to 8/27). The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has been kept informed of the situation via telephone by J. W. Styler and J. A. Barnes. Approval is requested for additional excess flaring over the fifteen days specified in the Alaska Conservation Order No..J~--~ '<~/ J. A. Barnes Assoc. Production 'Engineer JAB: jmo cc: A. Mechler, Jr. J. L. Campbell K. A. Thoma J. B. Rodgers J. W. Styler RECEIVED AUG ? 7 1981 Alaska 0il & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage Union Oil and Gas I~' an' Western Region Union Oil Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-7681 Robert T. Anderson District Land Manager unl ,n 'May '31, 1973 State of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 CONSERVATION ORDER NO. 119 APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION Gentlemen: Pursuant to the provisions of Conservation Order No. 119, Union Oil Company of California, on behalf of itself and Marathon 0il ComPany, requests an extension of said order until September' 1, 1973. Interim progress reports will be submitted on July 1 and August 1, 1973. The attached report summarizes the progress since the April 30 report and outlines plans for the ultimate solution of the condensation problem. As is apparent, it is not likely the necessity of flaring will be eliminated prior to September 1. Extension of a lesser period of time will only cause increased burden on the Committee as it must review and act on additional applications for extension. Submitting interim reports will however allow the Committee to keep abreast of the Progress of this project and insure the best interests of the State are being protected. Your favorable consideration of this application is respectfully requested. Very truly yours, MAY 3 197,3 DIVISICi,,i C,F OIL AND GAS, ANCHORAGE UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA By .. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF CONSERVATION ORDERS 119 AND 120 During the month of May, we have con'tfnued investigation of methods to eliminate or minimize the liquid condensation problem in 'the Cook Inlet Gas System. On May 29, the report was received from Gore Lab showing the .. results of dew point determinations at various pressures and the amount of liquid condensation and phase composition at 1200 psig and 25°F. In summary, the tests showed the dew poin~ to be 51°F at 1000 psig, 44°F at 1200 psig, '36°F at 1400 psig and beloTM 0..°1~ at 1600 psig. . These dew point data show 'that we are operating in the retrograde region; and 'that if'the operating pressure were increased to 1600 p'sfg, the dew point Would be below normal operating temperature. However, as has been mentioned before, we are presently limited to a maximum pressure of about 1400 psig due to equipment limitations. At 25° and 1200 psig, th~'laboratory teSt showed '[ha'[ the liquid phase was 4.44% of 'the total volume which would correspond to about 55 barrels per MMSCF. From the.vapor'and liquid composition at 25° and 1200 psig, we will calculate vapor'liquid equilibrium constants for each component. HoPefully, from 'these results we will be able '~'o obtain a correlation that will enable us to predict equilibrium values at other conditions so that we can better evaluate the alternate methods of reducing liquid dropout. A tentative design for the depropanizer overhead-air mixture fuel system has been received from Chem-Gas Construction Company. We are investigating safety aspects of the system and flexibility of the system at varying operating conditions. We expect to have design finalized within · [he next week to ten days. Our proposed test to use some gas well gas for lift gas was delayed when a closer look at the operation showed that compressor h°rsepower, rod load and operating pressure were more critical than had been expected. We still believe '[he project is feasible; but the safety controls and shut down will have to be carefully set for the new operating conditions and horsepower loading on the transportation service will have to be checked closely. We plan to make a test run within the next few weeks. Union Oil and Gas Div~o,..,' Western Region Union Oil Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-7681 Robert T. Anderson )istrict Land Manager April 30, 1973 .Co. State of Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Re: CONSERVATION ORDER NO. APPLICATION FOR, EXTENSION Gentlemen' Pursuant to the provisions of Conservation Order No. 120 Union Oil Company of California, on behalf of itself and Marathon Oil Company, requests an extension of said Order until July 1, 1973, with an interim written progress report submitted on June l, 1973. Granting of the requested extension will allow additional field tests and engineering studies to be conducted in an effort to solve the condensation problem in the pipeline. Depending on the results of such tests and Studies, further extensions may be required as pro- vided in the order. As indicated in the enclosed report our attempts to solve our problem has met with limited success. It is apparent that there is not a short term solution and therefore a more realistic extension period of 60 days is requested to allow adequate time in which to continue the test program outlined in the report. Very truly yours, enclosure UNION O/.~MPANY OF CALIFORNIA By: ~~a.~ ~L-~' REPORT TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATIO/~ FOR EXTENSIONS OF CONSERVATION ORDERS~_~AND 120 On March 28, 1973, the West Forelands Plant was shut down for 2½ hours to change the turbo-expander controls. This change was made to enable 'the turbo-expander to recover more quickly from upsets caused by changes in op- erations on the West Forelands production platforms and onshore production facilities. We have been very pleased with the improved performance result- ing from the instrumentive changes. Recovery from upsets is much more rapid, thus maintaining better overall plant liquids recovery and resulting in less heavy .hydrocarbons entering the Cook Inlet Gas System. The following steps were taken in preparation for a test to determine liquid dropout at a higher operating pressure- 1. At Granite Point, the liquid detecting and diverting system was calibrated and put in working condition. · Piping and instrumentation at the East Shore facilities have been modified to provide more uniform liquid flow and increase continu- ity of operations. · The west shore line and the cross inlet lines were pigged to remove all liquids so that liquid dropout during the high pressure test could be more accurately determined· The pigs made their runs at near the predicted elapsed times, arriving without delivering large amounts of liquids. The plant depropanizer overhead was turned into the Cook Inlet Gas System on April 16. The line pressure was gradually increased from 1300 psig, reaching the operating point of 1400 p'sig, on April 19 which correspo:nds to East Forelands pressure of approximately 1300-1350 ps'ig. on April 19, with the plant depropanizer overhead having' been turned into the Cook Inlet Gas System for three days, large amounts of liquids began arriving at the East Forelands facilities. Since that time the liquids separating and Vaporization facilities at East Forelands have been fully loaded much of the 'time with intermittent high level alarm line shut-ins and consequent occasional flar- ing at West Forelands· The turbo-expander instrumen't changes, 'the higher gas system operating pre- sure, the modi£ications at the East Shore facilities, and proper operation of the Granite Point liquid diverting system have not reduced the liquids problem to manageable proportions. Investigation into other methods continues. As our next step we plan to use gas well gas to supplement compressed lift gas on the Dolly Varden. After minor modifications are completed on the .. platform, 3 to 5 MMCFDofdry gas well gas can be utilized as lift gas. When this additional gas reaches 'the onshore facilities it will increase the turbo-expander throughput which will increase the plant refrigeration and reduce the butanes and heavier hydrocarbons left in the residue gas. The gas well gas will also dilute the butanes and heavier hydrocarbons remaining in the residue gas. We expect to try this procedure within the next two weeks. As reported on March 23, gas samples were sent to Core Laboratories in Dallas, Texas, to obtain dew point and equilibrium data to better evaluate various alternatives. The shipper caused some delay enroute, but the samples have reached Dallas and testing is in progress. Core Laboratories expects to complete the work in about two weeks. Use of the deproPanizer overhead product as lease fuel at the West Forelands facilities is being investigated. A safe system with a high degree of reliabil- ity is required. We have had numerous conversations with Chem,Gas Company of St. Paul discussing the type and size equipment, safety and operating con- trols and delivery of equipment. The latest proposal from Chem-Gas Company is in the mails, When received, this proposal should enable us to determine the feasibility of using the depropanizer overhead for fuel. Fluor Corporation is working with Rotoflow, the turbo-expander manufacturer, to specify new impeller and turbine wheels for maximum efficiency at present and future gas rates The design cannot be finalized until the above outlined teStS have been completed. Union Oil and Gas ~i 3n: Western Region Union Oil Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-7681 union Robert T. Anderson District Land Manager March 23, 1973 State of Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 ~,1..~,,, A,J~,,'~- .,~,~..~,.,,.I I1°1.1 Re: CONSERVATION ORDER NO. 119 APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION Gentlemen: ~, I~_ CO / / ~ ~ ..... ~:'.;122:,T .... Pursuant to the provisions of Conservation Order No. 119, Union Oil Company of California, on behalf of itself and Marathon Oil Company, requests an extension of said Order until May 1, 1973. Granting of the requested extension will allow additional field tests and. engineering studies to be conducted in an effort to solve the condensation problem in the pipeline. Depending on the results of such tests and studiesv further extension may be required as provided in the Order. The enclosed report is submitted as additional support for this request. Very truly yours OIL AND GAS A~CHORAG5 UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA By: STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS Alaska 011 and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcup i ne Drlve Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Emergency Order February 9, 1973 Conservation File No. 119 Union Oil Company of Californla Trading Bay Field The Union 0II Company of California has petitioned the Alaska 0II and Gas Conservation Committee for an emergency order al lowing exception to Rule 2 of Conservation Order 103 to permit the flaring of caslnghead gas originating from the Trading Bay Field in excess of the amount necessary for an adequate safety flare. The unforeseen condensation of hydrocarbon gases in the submarine caslnghead gas pipeline has resulted In the necessity to flare a relatively small portion of the total volume of gas to al Iow an uninterrupted flow of the remainder of the gas from the West Foreland production facility to the Nlklskl area. An emergency order is hereby granted pursuant to Title II, Alaska Admlnlstrative Code, Section 2012, permitting the flarlng of gas ori- ginating from the Trading Bay Field in excess of the amount necessary for an adequate safety flare at the West Foreland productlon faclllty until 7:00 AM February 24, 1973. Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Executive Secretary t tn See Conservation Order 120 for Hearing Exhlblt s CONSERVATION FILE NO. l l9 & NO. 120 _ TRANSCRIPT HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1973 81'AT~ Or A~A,~A DEPARTIVlENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS A I aska 01 I ,and Gas Conserva'l-I on C,m"~m I 'f"l'ee 'CONSERVAII.O,~" ORDER ;uO~' ..} Ig & No.. ....~ ~0 Trading Bay Field He. Arthur Field February 23, 1973 PROCEEDINGS Hr. Burrell: Good mornlng'Gentlemen. This Is a hearlng of the Alaska 011 and Gas Conservation Comml.ttee, Conservation FI les No. 119 and No. 120, both of which relate to the application of Union 011 Company of California for amendment to Rule No. 2 of Conservation Orders numbers 103 and 104 respectlvelY~ to. authorize the the. 011 and Gas Conservation Commll~ee to '~ authorize flarlng or venting of caslnghead gas In Trading Field and the I~cArfhur River Field, respectively, In cases of emergency or operational. necessll~/. It Is a proposed changeto~rder, that Is, to Rule No. '2 of both &triers, which .essentially PrOvldes one addltlon, which Is: "and except as may be authorized by the Committee In cases of em. ergency or operational , necessity." In other words the change 'relates to the addition of the langUage or operational necessity.~ Reason given IS unforeseen operating conditions due to the condensation of hydrocarbons In the gas lines, and they request authority to flare for this reason'. And both notices were published Februar~ · '13, 1973, In the Anchorage DallY News, and we'll take these ~wo hearings In sequence. In both cases there's been an emergency order Issued which expires at 7:00 AI~ tomorrow morning, ,o permit the flaring. I~Y name Is Homer Burrell and I~m. Chairman of the Alaska 011 and Gas Conservation Comml,,ee; to my right Is ~lr. Tom I~arshall, Execu,lve Secretary of the Conservation Committee; to my 'l'eft~ Is Hr. O. K. GI Ibreth, member of the Commit~ee; and to my extreme right Is Mr. John Reeder, ~he A~orney ~eneral~s Office. Owing ~' the fact that the emergency order expires at 7: O0 tomorrow mornl rig, I, w I I I be necessary to rule today on th I s matter, On, of th~S:t~a~l~t~esk-:evem/body--.to.,.~tm/~..and..speak I nfo mlarophene. I apola~jl~e ,l'or' my col~, i'm h~vln~l difficult/ .l~d hope they can pick me up. IS the applicant ready to testlfy? I~r. Anderson: Yes. Hr. Chairman and members of the Commltte, my ,, name Is Robert H. Anderson,: attorney for Harathon 011 Company In Anchorage. As the notice of hearing specifies In the request, Union. Oil Company of California fl led the request In behalf of I~self and Harathon 011 Company. Now I am appearing here today In behalf of both companies. We would request that since the ceslnghead gas from the Trading Bay Field, which Is subJect to Conservation Order 103, and the caslnghead gas from I~cArthur River Field, which Is subject to C°nservatlon Order 104, both go Into the Unlon-l~arathon system, and Inasmuch as Rule 2 of 103 and 104 Is Identical In language, we reque,st:'that= the hearing be .consolidated', on 'the conservation 'Orders .. ., , Hr. Burrel I: Unless there Is an objection we' I I consolidate the hearing, recognizing the fact that the evidence might have to be different, differentiated between the two productions Hr. Anderson= Alrlght. We also request that all' previous testimony .. ,given before this Committee at the Hay II, 1972 hearing, concerning Con-' ... servatlon Orders 102 through 105, Insofar as It pertains to Conservation .. : Orders 103 and 104, pertaining to the Harathon-Unlon system, and to the effects of shutting In production., be Incorporated Into this record and made a part of this hearl.ng,. Hr, Burrell: Nlthout obJectlon,.,we*ll Include them as part of the record. _ -2- Mr. Anderson: Just briefly ltd like to set forth the order of hearings, would be concerned with the continuing need ?o flare periodically, the depro- panlzer overhead volumes, which wi II be explained In the testimony; and the other part would relate ~o the need to amend the rule for operational necesslty In cases of certain needs. Wetll present two witnesses, In the first part, Mr. Claude L. Roberts, Marathon 011 company, who will testlfy briefly describing the system and describing the nature of the current problem. Ur. Ray Barnds, of Union 011 Company of California, will then , testify concerning the Operation of the marine lines and the east side liquid handling faclll.tles. Ur. Barnds will then testify as fo one area under study for solution of the problem. Mr. Roberts will then come back and testify as to another area under consideration for 'solution of the problem. We wi I I then go to. part" two,. and Hr. BarndS wi I I testify In_ connect'Ion?'':; ' ........................ With 'tl~&-'"6if&i~'~i'friS'i~iT-n&~'S's'l'~/'; ....... NOW, questl~Sns are welcome at anytime. Wetre suggeSting that questions be held to the end of each part unless It goes to clarification of the testimony at that particular point, and the reason I say this IS that the subsequent testimony of-the given witness may explaln the question which you had In your mind at that time. I think It would be approprlaL~e tO 'swear both'witnesses at' ~I~I"S +ime. ....... '., ~] ~ Mr. Burrell: Alrlghf, Hr. Harshall . Hr. Uarshal I: Please' ri'Se and' ~als· your rich+ hand. In ?he matter now at hearing do you swear tO tei j' tJie trt~h,' tJqe Whole. truth and nothing ........ ~i., ',,,. .............. but the truth, so help y~u"'God? .. -,, Hr. Roberts: I do. Mr. Barnds: I do. Mr. Marshall: You may be seated, thank you. Mr. Burrell: Let ,he record show ,ha, Mr. Ray Barnds and Mr. Claude Roberts are, both. Anderson: Mr. Claude Roberts of Uarathon Is our first witness' and I think youill recall that at the May II, 1972 hearing, Mr. Roberts was qualified as an expert witness end we ask that his qualifications be accepted for the purpose of this hearing and that :he testify as an expert' witness. Mr. 8urrell: HIs qualifications are accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Roberts: 'Thank you. ltd like ~o ask Mr. Perdy ~o aid me In my ,. testimony by pol. ntlng out. salient features on both. exhlblt, Marathon Exhibit ; · ; , , . '~ ~, ,,, No. I hd. arafho'n:.Exhlblt'No'. ?.,, ,, .,," " .. ,. :'-, · "'*"' ', ~ :" ' Hy name Is Claude Roberts and I am the Anchorage Dlvlslon P~t'roleum Engineer for Marathon 011 Company. "In addition, '1 served es Co-'chairman" of the ~¢hanlcel Coordinating Sub~ml'~'ee Of a jol. nt Marathon-Union 'Task" ,, Form established to deslgn and Install the Cook Inlet Gas System. It Is In this latter capacity that I testify today, t4y testimony will br...!efly ., describe the entire cOOk Inlet Gas System, Including 'the Liquid E~tractlon Plant at West Foreland, the TransPortation CompressO~ Station, the Pipeline System, and the East Foreland Liqu'id Handling Facll. ltles. This total system cost In excess of 26 million doilar~';'wlth' the de~'l'gh' :'end construction commencing shortly"after July I, 1971. I will glve in more detail ~he · .. design parameters for the Liquid Ex~ractlon Plan~;'"'how ~hey differ from . actual operating conditions, and the resultant problem of liquid drop- out In the plpellne, whlch Is what is causing the current emergency sltuatlon. ~, aaends wl~l~ Union 0110empan¥ will describe the problems connected with operating the marine lines and the handling of liquids at the East Foreland facilities, and finally we Will describe for you some of the alternative methods we are considering for the solving of this complex problem. Marathon Exhibit #1 Illustrates this gas system 'and Its orientation to the caslnghead gas produc~lon from the McArthur RiVer Field and the Trading Bay Field. The total system consists of the Liquid Extraction Plant at West Foreland, the large compressor facility located there, a. 16" pipeline to Granite Point complete wlth pigging facilities, the dual. · ~ I0" submarine line to East FOreland complete wlth pigging facilities, liquid handllng facllltles at East Foreland, and flnally.a 16" pipeline Into the Nlklskl area complete wlth pigging facilities. The next exhibit, Marathon Exhl'blt #2, Illustrates a simplified'drawing of the Trading Bay Production Facility Including gas separation, compression, , . and the liquid extraction Plant. You will note that' the feed ,to the, plant consists of gas produced from the three platforms serving the McArthur River Field, the Trading Bay Fleld'Monopod, and' flash vapors resulting . from treating the. crude oli produced'from these two.fl'aids. Rich vapors from the storage tanks are also accumulated and are Included In this feed . stream. These plant facilities were orlglnally placed In operatlon durlng ,. February, 1970. They were designed to extract butanes 'and heavier 'hydrocarbons from the gas cryogenically, employing a turboexpander.for refrigeration. Prior' to the construction of the Cook Inlet Gas System, propane and lighter hydrocarbons ·were f'lared for lack Of a market. This essentially was the status of our operation On July I, 1971, the date of the "No Flare" orders. As explained In testimony given last Hay, eenslderable englneerl'ng .................................. effOr?'-'was necessary' 1~o" °bta'ln"apdated gas productiOn-forecasts and analyses . . ......... , ....... .... , .... : ................. , ............ . ..... ~.:,.~,...~, ,~,,., .............. .,~ .. ................ ~.~ ..... .~, .......... ~ ., to properly determine the required modlflcatlons and additions to our exlstlng facilities to make the gas deliverable. . The resu It of th Is data acqulstlon Is summarl zed on Iqarathon Exh I b I t No. 2 to help eXplain the current emergency sltuatl°n experlenced. The rates and analyses of gas from the He. Arthur River F.l~ld and the Trading Bay Field, as well as ~hat of the crude flash vapors, listed there under the design column, were used for deslgn. Please note the high propane content of the HcArthur River Gas,..ll percent; and the even higher propane content of the crude flash vapors, 30 percent. All these gas streams are combined through various stages of compression and ~nter the dry bed dehydrators for water removal prior to going tO the turbo-expander portion of the LEX' plant. Perhaps a brief explanation of how an expander .~unctlons.ls In order: when gas Is expanded from a high pressure to a lower pressure across a choke, a certain amount of cooling takes place.. This Is known as the Joule- Thompson effect. I am sure you have all observed ~ls effect when controlllng a high pressure gas well with resultant frost forming on the piping adjacent to the choke. Additional heat can be removed from the gas. If the expansion .~, process can be made to perform work. In the case of a turbo-exPander, the gas Is expanded through a wheel, to which Is at~ached a shaft connecting to a work source, !n our case a centrifugal compressor, 'i~.¥ first, compressing the feed gas through thls centrifugal compressor and then expanding It · back through the expander, a high 'level of refrigeration Is Imparted fo · the gas. Thls process Is ampllfled by cooling the gas.pr, lOt to ®xpanslon by back exchange with the cold resldue gas. An Important~f~::tor to r~mo~al:}er - the leaner tho gas, the lower the temperature.-:w'l, I I be::...~rom the expansion process, The deep refrlgeratlon Imparted to the gas causes the heavier hydro- carbons to condense, along wlth a portion of propane, ethane, and methane. These. liquids are then separated from the 'residue gas and dellvered as feed to the depropanlzer. Stating It slmply, thls depropanlzer ?ewer stabl Ilzes the Ilqulds by removing the propane and Ilghter hydrocarbons overhead, ,, with the butane and heaVler hydrocarbons leaving the"bot~om and being InJected , Into the crude s~ream. ' The expansion process leaves the' residue gas at Iow pressure, thereby requiring additional compression fo e.n?er, the Pipeline system.... The.~wo · dry bed dehydrator tOwers, mentioned earl ler,,must frequently,, be. switched to' their drying cycle for'reactlvatlon. Hot gas floWs.through the bed. being I;ea'ctlvated, stripping out the' water' vapor. Unfortunately the.' drying agent, 'activated alumina, absOrbs some heavy hydrocarbons wh!ch, are also .... . , ....... . ......... , ......... ~,,':.".. . .: .... . ...... . .... ',L....i ..... , .... . stripped out In the drYing.process. Since. one tower or the other Is on . the drylng cycle at all ~:lmes, *the'dm/lng gas Is a continuous flow and amounts to about four million cubic feet'per:day. This gas stream, as wel I as the depropanlzer overhead vapors, 'must be dehydrated and compressed -. to enter the pipeline. Please note. that the depropanlzer overhead stream contains an extremely high percentage of propane, abe[it 60 percent.. -7- The comblned stream of expander resldue, dehydrator drylng gas, and depropanlzer overhead vapors makes up'~he to,al feed '~o the Cook Inlet Gas System, The percent of propane and butane In ~hls c~mblned Itreem . Is crltlcal as ~o'~whether' Or not'It wlll 'stay In ~e'vapor phase ~mugh-' out the plpell~ system 'at ~e Pressures and temperatures I? Is ~ encounter. Thls was of great ~n~rn f~ ?he Very beglnn'lng and ~as one of our impotent design Para,tars. The ~mblned s~r~m going I~ ~e ~k Inlet Gas System ~as to-have a 'hydroCarbon dewpoln~ ~ higher ?hen 20o Hara~hon~s cai'rule?Ions Indicated a hydr~arbon de, point of about 15°F a? 1200 pounds, eVen ~lth a ~mb'Ined residue gas f~ a plan? recover- lng only 75 percent"butanes. ~weVer~~ depending' upon ~hlch equilibrium favor ~ela?lon was used, we reC~nlzed It ~as po~'sl, ble' ?hat re?r~rade ~ndensa?lon ~ld o~ur resulting In Ilqul'd fall-ou~ In the pipeline h I gher tempera?utes. Hara?hon and Union 'elected to Install an extensive liquid re--vel .. system a? East Foreland ?o cover ?he ~n?lngen~ of .:.'a plant upset and In ?he case ~?r~rade ~ndensatlon did ~cur. This ..llquld r~oval system cos? I n ex,ss of 500 thousand dol lets. ~r. Barnds....~l I I expla.l'n .the system . .. In more detail and a b'rlef description here Is Intended only ~o sh~ the extent of our design ~nslderaflons'....' ~ Our design ~aS' based'. ' upOn ~he'~fOllo~lng" meth~'~bf operation: A pig ~Ould be periodically launched at West Foreland pushing any liquid hydr~arbons ~ards Gmnlte Point. If Il'quids ~ere present, fhe~ ~ould au~tlcally be dl ~e~ed I nfo on I y o~ of the ~o =arl ne I I nes. 'The I I nes ~ntal nl ng ~e liquids ~u[d ~hen be pigged at a ~nt~lled rate pushing the liquid hydrocarbons towards East Foreland. Each marlne line has a large, high- pressure scrubber at the East Foreland terminus. Liquids would be scrubbed from the gas with the gas flowing Into the east slde 16" line golng Into the Nlklskl area. The Ilqulds would then flow Into a flash stabll'lzation system and the resultant vapors would enter Unlonts I0" system, dellverlng . : ~ the Shell-Amoco gas to Collier. The stabilized liquid remaining would ; , then be stored for disposal · Since the scrubbers were limited In size due to ?he high pressure application, liquids must be removed from this line at a controlled rate , to prevent liquid carryover Into the 16" gas system. Since the other line would be del lverlng dry gas, thls scheme seemed to be well conceived. Enough on design parameters, for the moment, let us now discuss the actual conditions and thelr effect on the design. Unfortunately, we antlcipatad much too high a gas volume forecast for the Trading Bay Field. Instead of slightly less than 26 million per day, we have only 8 million per day. The gas forecast for the McA~thur River Fleld and the crude flash vapors, for all practical purposes, were fairly accurate. The lower than antlclpated U~nopod gas production has three adverse effects. One, the turbo-expander being sized for larger rates, opera?es at a lower speed, resulting In less refrlgeratlo'n being 'developed, leaving a richer residue gas: two, the'i~lgher relative percentage of the richer McAr~hur River and crude flash vapors give a heavier plant feed resulting In less temperature reduction; and finally, the composlta residue stream going to the Cook Inlet Gas System Is'richer In propane simply because t~here ..Is less methane available. ,: : ., ~ ., , , , The combination of ~he first ~wo factors has resulted In an expander speed of only 17,000 'RPI~ InStead Of"tl~e 'design sp'eed'of 25,000 RR4. The and the butane recovery efficiency 'l's about 77 percent Instead of a design of 94 percent. Consequently, the actual recomblned residue gas Is much richer In propane than the design stream. Further, It appears that ~he higher equltlbrlum factors are the more valid of the ~wo correlations as we are experiencing · . a retrograde condltion resulting In'llquld fall-out In the pipeline system. Retrograde condensation Is a phenomena long rec0gnlzed In the oll Industry whereby the 'hydrocarbon system does Just the opposite of what you would Ioglcal ly assume. If our system Is In the retrograde conden- satlon range and the pressure Is ralSed sufficiently higher, the hydro- carbon system tendS to be more In the vapor phase and have a lower dew- point temperature. The question Is, can the pressure be raised sufflclently hlgh enou§h In our system so that at' 26OF, the minimum antlclpa~ed temper- ature, the hydrocarbons will remain' I'n the vapor phase. Since placlng the system I nfo operat I on"<l'ti" October o~'"' 'laSt" 'year and "Observ Ing the Iarge amount of liquid condensation, 'we are s'~udylrlg ?he"phaSe b'eha~lor once again of this system. One set of' equl'llbri'u'ni"'fac~ors Indl'caf~s 'that If we raise the line pressure about"200' pounds to'an' operating preSsure'of 1300 pounds, the hydrocarbon system Will remaln"l'n' ~he vapor, pha~e.'; .... However,:" the' Other corre I at I on '1 nd'! cares' ~that we' "w'l I'l"experl enceh I gh dewpo I nfs even at. 1500 pounds, which exceeds our maximum operating pressure. The combination of ~he first ~wo factors has resulted In an expander speed of only 17,000 RP~I Instead of the design speed of 25,000 RI~4. The actual dls~fllarge temperature Is -4{:PF Instead of ~le -68¢F anticipated and the butane recovery efficiency Is about 77 percent Instead of a design ,of , Consequently, ?he actual re~blned resldue gas Is mu~. richer In p~pa~ ?hah the design s~ream. Fu~her, I? appears that ~he higher equlllbrlum factom are ?he more valid of ~he ~o ~rrela~lons as we are experiencing a re?~grade ~ndltlon resulting In Ilquld fall-out In the pipeline sys~m. Retrograde condensation Is a phenomena long recognized In the oll Industry whereby the hydrocarbon syS~em does Just the opposite of what .. you would logically assume. .If our system Is In the. retrograde conden- sation range and the pressure Is raised sufflclently higher, the hydro- carbon system tends to be'more .In the vapor phase and have a lower dew-. '" po Int, '-tamp er. atur. e.~.~he_ques t I,o.n.~=.ls~_.can_.l:he..p tess u re. b.e..., .m I sed_s.uf.f.! c len!:l ¥. .................. hlgh enough In our sys~em.so that at 26OF, the minimum anticipated .temper'- ature, the hydrocarbons will remain In the vapor I~hase, slnce placing the system Into operation In October of last year and observing the large amount ,'. of liquid condensation, we are studying the phase behavior once again of . . ~'. ,'~ ., ~ ~ . , this system, One set of equl I'lbrlum factors Indicates that If we raise ~he I1~ pressure about 200 pounds to an °pe~atlng pressure of 1300 pounds, the hydr~arbon sys?ea WI II mmaln In ~e Vapor phase. ~wever, the ~ . ~rrelatlon Indl~tes that we will experlen~' high dew~ln~'"even a~ 1500 pounds~ whl~ ex--ds out'maximum opere?lng p~ssure. You wi II notice the high propane content of the depropanlzer Over- head stream, some 60 percent. This stream Is a relatively small volume, ranging from two mi II Ion =uble feet.per day In the winter mort?rtl 1~o four million cubic feet per day during the summer, and represents about 1/16 of the volume delivered ~o the Trading Bay Production Facility. ~/e have on two occasions, since inltlal start-up last October, diverted the depro- panlzer overhead to flare and the Ilquld problem In the lines has greatly declined each time. As you wi II recall, the Commll~ee was advised on each of these occasions. I would like to amplify the high propane content of the gas going to the Cook Inlet Gas System by briefly explalnlng the propane material balance presented on Marathon Exhibit No. 2, and hlghllgh'ted In red. Tara I propane COntent I n the casl nghead gas feed Ing the LEX plant Under design conditions was estimated to be about 3300 barrels per day. ^'ctual conditions have re~ulted In"2900 barrels per da~, some 400 barrels'~' per day less even though the Inlet gas volume changed from 55 ml II Ion to 35 million. The propane content of the expander residue gas Is 1800 barrels, per day under actual conditions whlle design estimates contemplated only 900 .. barrels per day. Please' remember that if the propar~e content Is reduced In the 'expander residue by additional ref'rlgeratlon'causl'ng more of It to condense, the propane necessarily Wi II be In the depropanlzer overhead and added back into the system going to the Cook Inlet Gas System. Therefore, whether: the propan~ i~ i'e'ft In the expande~ residue or Is In the depropanl~e~;"oV~rhead stream; 'the resui~an;~ feed"~o the Cook , ,, Inlet Gas System.ac=tually contalns'24(~O'"barreis per day of'propane as compared -II- You will notice the high propane content of ~he depropanlzer over- head,stream, some 60 percent. Thls stream Is a relatlvely small volume, ranging fram ~wo mi II lan ~bl= feet per day In the'wln~e¢ eel~?lle ~ four mi Ilion cubic feet per day during the summer, and represents about 1/16 of the volume del Ivered to ~he Tradl ng Bay Production Facl I I~y. We have ':;~,';~? , ., ~ .... ,, .~,.'~,, '7r' .......... ?~.~T,~.--T,~: ..... ,-T,:-.... ~ ,,,. ..... :~r'e,.~: .,,,,,, . ; ,..~..,T .... ";~*"~"'' , ' ", ' ~ ." ") "~"' ' '" ' ~, '' ,',L~, ,,~,' , on twO occaslon's,',slnCe"lnltlal 'start. uP last 0c~0ber, dlverted'!th'e depro- panlzer overhead ~o flare and ~he liquid problem In the lines has greatly declined each time. As you will recall, the Committee was advised on each of these occasions. I would like to amplify the high propane content of the gas going to the Cook Inlet'Gas System by briefly explaining ~he propane material balance presented on Marathon Exh lb If No. 2, and h Igh I I ghted I n red. Tota I propane content I n the casl nghead gas feed Ing the LEX plant . Under design condltl°ns was estimated ~o be about :5:500 barrels per day, Actual conditions have resulted In 2900 barrels per day, some 400 barrels per day less even ~hough the Inlet gas volume changed from 55 million to :55 mi Illon.. . , ,, ~ , . , · '" "'~ , mh~ propane"content'-Of'"the',,expander',"resldue ga'~" 'I'S 1'800 barrels, per · day under actual conditions whlle design estimates contemplated only 900 barrels per day. Please remember that If the propane content Is redUced' In the expander residUe by addltlonal refrlgeratlon causing more of It to condense, the propane necessarlly wi II be In the depropanlzer overhead and added back In~O"t~'s~em 'gbihg"~o'the ~C'ook "l"nlet~gas system. Therefore,' Wh&~h&~"'th~e:propan~ is'l'eft In'the e~pander residue or" Is In the depropanlze~"overhead stream, the resultant"~bed fo'~ie Cook Inlet Gas system"actuall?'c6n~ains 2400"ba~e'ls Per day"Of'"p.roPane as compared .. :.~ ~." ~ .~ ~..,.... ".~ L..,' ,, ,.. ' ~ ..... , ~ ... , ~ .. ~ . to 3100 barrels per day under deslgn conditions.' However, the crltlcal point Is to,relate these volumes of propane to the total volume of gas going to the to the Cook Inlet Gas System In each eaee. 'PrOl~aane ~n~n? actually has Increased from 67.4 barrels per million In the design case'to 87.8 barrels per million In the actual case, for an Increase of 30 percent. .., It Is thls hydro~bbn sYs~m that Is'currently Ca~sing the Ii~'Ul'd ~rop- out problem. I think this is the proper time to turn the program over to Mr. Barnds, to describe In more detail the East Foreland facllltles and the problems experienced wlth operating the marlne lines, and we will then further describe some of the areas we are Investigating to correct this problem. Hr. Anderson: Just one minute, with respect ~o Harathon Exhlblt I and 2, Hr. Roberts, were these prepared by you, or under your superVision? Hr. Roberts: Yes, they were. · · ~,. _ .". ...... H_.r_.__A..rl.'~,~s2_n'_. 'We ~k that 'UarathoK Exhlblts~..li,~nd 2 be admltffed Ir~~ ':"~ ' evidence. Mr. Burrel I.: You don~t by any chance have a small copy? ~r. Anderson: Yes sir, we wi II furnlsh you a sma.l.I copy of £xhlbit ,:, I and a blue Ilne copy of Exhibit 2 tO be replaced by a smaller copy when : · ~,.. ~'.,~ . ,, ~,,,,, L'.~ · ~ , .... "-, .... ,, we can shoot It down. Will that be acceptable? Mr. Burrell: .W~ wi'Il have reprodu~-ed~ repro~iucti'(~ns"Of both exhlblts, Is that right? · ,.. Hr. Anderson: Yes. Hr. Butte I I: Our flies will be complete. Mr. Ande--~'n:rso RIh""~'g-~. '~"' ~ ........ '~' ...... "*' "'~'~' ' "'"'"~' Mr. Burrell: ~/Ithout objection, that wlll be fine, Mr. Anderson: Fine. Also ~lr. Ray Barnds has not been quallfled' before 'l'hls Oomml~ee.,as;~an,'~expe~f't~ltness, and w~ would like ~ do that at this tl~. ~r. Barnds~ would you please state your qualifications for ~he benefit of the C~l~ee. Hr. ~rnds: Thank you. I ~celved a ~chelor of Engineering degr~ In Petroleum Engineering In 1957, and a ~asters of Science ~gr~ In Petro- leum Engl~erlng In 1959, both at the Sch~l of Engineering at the Unlversi~ Southern Callf~nla. Hy experience In the oli Indust~ and englneerlng and operations begab~":ln 1956 when I was employed by ~e Union 011 ~pany of California. I~ve held several posltlons sln~ that tim with ~e Union , OII ~mpany and ~o ol I p~duclng ~panles.other then Union OII C~pany of California. These positions Include both staff and supe~vlso~ positions, wl~ d~llllng and rese~vol~ and p~uctlon engineering and drllllng and p~ductlon opeFa?lons. My experle~e In Alaska began In Sep~embe~ 1971, when I was appointed District Productlon Superlntendan? of ~e Alaska District ~o the Union 011 C~pany of Callfornla. In July 1971 I began se~lng as the C~Ch'al~an of the Joint Marathon-Union Task Fo~ Mechanical C~dl- .. natlng Sub~ml~ee, established ?o design and const~uc~ the C~k Inlet Gas Gathering syst~. I subsequently served as P~jeCt .Manage~ for Union 011 C~pany du~lng the mnsfru~ion of the dual marine plpellne, Eas~ Side Ilquld handling f~lll?les and East Side plpell~ for the C~k Inlet gas. M~. Ande~on: N~ we would ask ~at Mr. Ba~nds~ .quallfl~tlons be ~pted In ~der that he may testify as an expe~ wlt~ss. -13- Hr. Burrell: Without obJection, we accept Hr. Barndts qualifications as an expert witness. Mr. Barnds: Thank you. Hr..Keller wlll follow along with part of .., . , the ,es'lmony wl,h Union's Exhibit 8, a schematic flow diagram of the East S I de f acl I 1 17. Hy name Is Ray Barnds. I am District Production Superintendent for the Union 011 Company of California, Anchorage,Dlstrlct, Alaska. My purpose here today Is ~o discuss, th~ p,rpb~l~em, of,,.opera?Ing the, dual,marlne:*plpeline and the East Foreland, Ilqu,!d. hand~ I lng` facl I,!tles, .whlch-,.have necessitated . the f larlng of the dePropanl zer overhead vapors at the' Trading Bay Production Fac111t7. As Hr. Roberts has testl'fled, and'Ur. James E. Church has previously, testlfled during the Uay I1., 1972 public hearing, the facllltles at the East Foreland marine line terminus were designed to handle potential con- densed liqUids In the. marine pipelines,at a controlled 'ra~e. Previous test- tlmony has established that these facllltles were designed to operate during plpellne plgging oPerations and ,durlng'those timeS that the Llquld Plant was bypassed or Operating In an uPset condltl°n. The operating plan developed forWh.lch the facilities! were designed was to plg any accumdlated liquids out of the 16" West Side · . onshore lines. These ,liquids were to be pigged from the West Foreland production facll,lty to Granite Polnti at which point Instrumentatlon was" . Installed to divert liquids Into oneof"the.two marine pipelines. The liqUid storage capacity of each of the two marine Ilnes Is In excess of ', 9,000 barrels. Each line therefore provides the needed liquid Storage capacity for the liquid accmumlatlon resulting from as much as' seven -14- days downtime at the LEX Plant to be removed from ?he 16" West Side pipeline. Following removal of the liquids from ~he 16" onshore line, the fluid diverting valve would open and the second of the two marine plpellnes would return ~o .normal.gas delivery service. Referring to Exhibit A, at this point in the liquid removal program It was planned to launch plpellne pigs at Granl,e Pol.nt In the marlne pipeline con- raining the Ilquld. The liquid would then be.dlspl, aced. from the plpellne at a controlled rate through the Ilquld recovery facllltles at the East Foreland Onshore Site. It should'be.noted that at this point It was planned that one marine. !lne would be.:, !n. ga,s se.rv, I;.ce..malntalnlng a constant flow of casl.nghead.gas ~o, l~he East. Slde d.e.,ll.veFy polnts. The second marl ne I I ne. f Iow.,contrOI let...governs the 'rate of I I qu I d remove I consistent wlth I lqu, ld.levels Inthe condensate receiver, Free gas Is separated In ?he recelver and put In the 16" East SI'de onshore , plpel Ine for del Ivery. ,~.Condensate .from the .receiver then f lows through the '~wo stage flash stabilization equlpment. Gas evolVlng, fro~ ?he stablll- zatlon process Is rebovered and.put IntO. the I0" Iow. pressure pipeline for' use in the Collier Carbon and Chemlcal Plant fuel system. Any remalnlng condensate Is collected In a condensate storage tank.. These faci I ltles were designed to flash stabi I,ize condensate from ?he ~.I system at maximum dally rates In excess of 1,500 barrels per day. In actual practice, It has been demonstrated that the equipment performs 'slightly In excess of rated designed parameters. During ?he past winter months, the Liquid ExtractlonPlant · .. has been operating as. Indicated by Hr, Roberts, and Ilqulds.'have been days downtime a? the LEX Plant ?o be removed from ,he 16" Wes? Side pipeline. Following removal of ?he liquids from ,he 16" onshore ?he fluid diver, lng valve would open and ,he second of ?he ,we marine pipelines would re?urn to normal gas delivery service. Referring to Exhibit A. at ,his polnt in the liquid remoVal program It was planned to launch pipeline plgs at Granite Point in ?he marlne pipeline con- telnlng the liquid. The Ilquld would then be displaced from the pipeline at a con?roi led rate through the liquid recovery facl I I,les a, the East Foreland Onshore SI,e. I, should be noted that at `his point It was planned that one marine line would be In gas service maln,alnlng a constant flow of caslnghead gas to ?he East Slde delivery polntso The second marine line flow controller governs the rate of liquid removal consistent with I lquld levels In `he condensate receiver. Free gas Is separated In ,he receiver and put in the 16" East Side onshore ., ,. . pipeline 'for delivery. Condensate from the receiver '`hen f'iows ?hroUgh ......... . ..... .~..~.. ~ ........ ~, =~_.~.~ ............................. · ........ . ..................................... ....................... ~ ............ ~ ...................................................................... ?he ,wo stage flash stabilization equipment. Gas evolving from `he stebl II- zatlon process Is recovered and put Into the I0" Iow pressure pipeline for use In the Collier Carbon and Chemical Plan, fuel system. Any remainlng condensate Is collected In a condensate storage tank. These faclli?les were designed to flash s,abllize condens~ate from the i.lsystem a, maximum dally rates In excess 'of 1,500 barrels per day. In ~aC'ual prac, lce, I, has been demons?rated ,ha, ?he equlpmen? performs ~llgl~,ly In excess of rated des I gned parameters. . During the pas~ winter m0~tl~.',';',~l~ L :i'quld EX+r C IO ' Plan? . has beeh opera, lng as i'ndl'Ca~e(J"l~; ~'~ Mr; Rob'er~s~;'' and j'l'qu'l'ds have been · · . condensing In the system at rates estlmatad to be In excess of 1,000 barrels per day. Operational problems, due primarily ~o the relatively large Plplllne clleme~er In rela+lonshl~ +o +he caslnghead gas throughput, have resulted In dlfflcult in pipeline plgglng operations necessary ~ remove accumulated COndensate liquids. Duo ?o the combined effects of ,. mlatively Iow veloel'b/ and the fact that gas Is used '~ displace plpe- , · line plgs, considerable bypassing occurs during the Pigging operation rosultlng In Inefficient Ilquld dlsplacemont. ~lr. Roberts has explained· the nature of the retrograde conden- sation phenomena °eeurrlng In the pipeline syst~. Llquld has been eonden- · , , sing throughout the Pipeline system as a result of the physical nature of the plant resldue. gas. · The condenSed liquids arrlve at the East Foreland facility In both plpellnos as a result of slug fl°w rather than at a controlled rate · . through a single 'line. It Is these condensate slugs.which presently . . . hamper operation of the Ilquld handllng facllltles'at East Foreland. The reason for this Is, Individual slugs ,of varying volume arrlve at a velocity equivalent to a 75,000 barrel per day liquid throughput rate. In other- words, whlle the total .condensation for a 24-hour day Is estimated to be sllghtly in excess of 1,000 barrels, It arrives In:both pipelines In slugs whlch Would have to be handled at rates of 75,000 barrels per day to main- rain continuous gas delivery. These facllltles were not constructed for this condition. It should be noted that had the exceedingly large faci 11ty · ~equired to handle these liquid slugs been Installed, the gas resulting from flash stablllzlng ilqulds would have evolved at a rate In excess of I10 million cubic feet per day. There Is no faclll~y or consumer capable of benefl~iall¥ ullng a vePlable lUl~plY Of hlgl~ BTU gal peaking a+ +he rate of II0,000 MCF per day for one hour or less. Accordingly, the facilltles~ as prevlously testified, were designed and Installed ?o flash sl"ablllze the pipeline condensate at a rate at whlch the flash gas could be utlllzed In the Collier Carbon and Chemical Plant for fuel In a recently modlfled plant system. The problem confroni:Ing the operators of the Cook Inlet Gas System at thls time Is, therefore, to modify operatlons In such a manner that condensable vapors arrive at the East Foreland Facl II1~ at a rate at which they may be flash stabilized and beneficially utilized. The emergency pro- cedure of flaring the 2.5 million cubic feet per day of depropanlzer overhead.vapors resulted .In our being able to ut'llize the balance of '' , .,,j! x* ," i,, ' ' ...... ........................ . the.'_caslnghead_,ges_~....g.[,um.e.,e~.,...~2._Dj'mi I I ion cubic fe;:l: ........................................ p~.c.._.~..d....a.._y._.Ln__a.._~. _n~:!.:_n.,_ .................... uous manner whl te Worklng on the development of a solution for handling the total stream. .. As a first step toward solving the problem, we have, within the past t~o ~eeks, completed test modifications to the system at East Foreland. .... ~ . ..~ .. , .'.~ · These changes have allowed us l~'e:levat&' the' pressure' In the pipeline - . system. The pressure w ii I 'be' I nc~eas'ed in' ~tep'~ 'i n ~n al"~empt to f I nd a point at which the condensable II.qUl'ds r;emaln in the vapor state bel~een the Trading'Bey'Production Facl ii'i7 'and the 'Eas~ F6r~land marl'ne line ... terml, nus, At I~as~ "Foreland the ~p'r~'S'Ure 'Is 'bel:'ng"'"re~'u~ced ~hrough a ' ' . ',. r,' ~ , , .- ~ I , ~: -','.-:' ~ ' ~L!' - control valve "in"an aLi'tempt to 'condense liquids In a continuous manner .. ,. directly proportlonal to the pipeline throughput, or, about 1,000 barrels per day for a ~hroughput rate of 30 mi II Ion cublc feet per day. The results of these modifications have not been evaluated as of this date. This Is due to the relatively short onllne time since establlshlng the new pressure base, and the fact that the gas co~posltlon has not been stabl I lzed since returning the depropanlzer overhead vapors to the gas stream. Therefore, It Is not known at this time whether or not the 2.5 'mi Ilion cublc feet per day of propane rich vapors can be handled In a manner enabling us to flash stablllze the condensate for fuel usage. I~r. Roberts w I I I no~ d I scuss other steps bel ng ~aken toward sol v Ing the prob I em. Hr. Anderson: ~lr. Barnds, Is Unlonts Exhibit "A", was It prepared by you or under your supervision. I~r'. Barnds: Yes It was. ~lr. Anderson: We request that Union Exhibit 'A', be admitted In evl dence. I~r. Burrel I: WI II we again have a reduced copy? Mr. Anderson: Yes I~r. Burrel I: Which wi II be a duplicate? Hr. Anderson: Yes, correct. Hr. Roberts wi II now testify con- cernlng the various areas of study under consideration for solution of ?he prob leto.' I~r, Roberts: Thank you. Mr. Barnds has described our current effor?s to try to find a satisfactory operatlng procedure whereby ?he depropanlzer overhead vapors continue to be Injected Into the pipeline -18- system. The depropanlzer overhead vapors are golng In,o the pipeline system' now being operated at the elevated pressure and to my knowledge at this tlme no ga9 19 being flared front any fitOl II~/ o?l~mP +had +ha+ for safe+y pilot. Other posslbllltles are being considered for solvlng the liquid drop-out problem In the event operating ?he system at higher pressure does not offer a solution. One of these posslbllltles Is ,o reduce the volume of depropanlzer overhead, which must be Injected Into the stream golng to the Cook Inlet Gas System. 'If we can develop a satisfactory fuel system wherebY th ls propane enrlched stream can be used for fuel In the crude treaters, a significant reduction could be made In the volume remaining for InJection Int° the Cook' Inlet Gas System. We estlmate that about I.I million Cubic feet per day would be used If a tellable fuel system can be developed Mr. GIIbreth: What was that again? Mr. Rober, s: I.I. The' question remalns - Is ?hls sufflclent to eliminate the liquid drop-out problem? It certainly would help and there- fore we are now discussing It with equipment manufactures~ both to determine the feaslblll,y and the t. ime required ,o design, purchase,, and Install the .necessary facl I Itles. Another area under review Is ,o produce dry gas well gas from the. Tradlng Bay Unl, Pla,forms through these gas handling facl Il ties resulting In a dry residue gas .stream g°lng ,o the Cook Inlet Gas System. This would, of course, have the effect of forcing the residue gas .to be more nearly Ilke that contemplated under design condltlons and should help , . ,he Ilquld'drop-ou, problem. Well capacity and gas handling equlpmen, Ilmltatl°ns on the platforms may limit the effectiveness of this possible solution. -19- One other area whlch has been under study slnce early December Is the redesign of ~he turbo-expander for greater recovery efficiency under a~kual flew rates, Whlle thla will have II~fle effect gn the propane content of the gas going to the Cook Inlet Gas System, It will remove more butanes and this wlll help lower the dewpolnt temperature of the resldue gas. Actual test data was acquired late In December and transmit-fed to our englneerlng flrm for redesign of the expander. A complete heat and material balance Is currently belng calculated using the new test data after which the expander manufacturer can 'redesign hls equipment. We expect the results of thls effort very shortly, and hopefully, modifications can be made this spring. Again, I must relterate that thls alone wt I t .. not.. be ..a. comp late .sol utlon, very well be a combination of some or all of the areas now under consid- eration, or new areas wh~lch may be developed. Any solutlon will deflnltely.requlre some modification to our system. It Is dlfflcult to. estlmate exactly the delivery time required for. equipment, but past experience Indicates that several months are usual ly required even for relatively minor Items. In addltlon,,we will quite likely requlre a good portlon of the spring and summer constructlon season for the Instal latlon of the necessary equipment. Although we are not sure that the elevated pressure operation currently under test will result In a total solution during the cold . months, we are hopeful that dUring the warmer months all or a portion of the depropanlzer overhead vapors can. be InJected iht0' the stream going . Into ~he Cook Inlet Gas System° -20- In order fo provide sufficient time to evaluate, design, receive, and Install the pOSslbl'e'needed· faCl'lltl'es to eliminate the liquid drop-out problem o==urr'ing'l'h the C~xak·'l~let'gme SYe?em; 'wa'Will:. nee~ aermie§ien ~o '. , continu~ f I~rt..ng the dabropanize~ overhead ~apo~s,. as' necessary, untl I ,. . September I, 1973'. '~ Mr. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, ~hat concludes part I of the hearlng that 'was outlined to you' prevlously,'and I"m sure that these witnesses will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. . ,. Mr. Burrell: Thank You, Mr. Anderson. Do you have any questions at this time Mr. Marshall? Mr. Marshall: Well,' I hate to' ask thls question because of, I'm not speaking from the Position of experience with underwater plpellnes. I Just like fo ask this naive question, If there Is any way of removing the condensed "l lqUlds from "the pipeline by a, or I guess you might call It a stinger or small Internal liquid line which would go'Inside of the ' sub-marine pipeline and In effect siphon off the liquids from the Iow point In the Illne, If It would be anywhere near the onshore fac111171 In other words, If' fh6re i's'a" 10w pa,'t-in'the' ilne"coujd there be a, for Instance a reeled plastic Stinger to go Into that line and remove the condensed liquid at the Iow spot, rather then a plgg!ng operatlong Is this, Is there any possibility/ of this? Mr. Barnds: This has'been discussed, the problem, the Iow point, the major Iow point In a pipeline Is about, I'd estimate 18 mi les from the place that we need fo get the liquid to '~"ea'~nen'i'. Mr. Marshall: It's on the wrong side, Isn'Y It~ ~, . · . . Mr. Barnds: Yhatts right. There are more than one Iow spots In the plpellne system, accordlng 1O our profll, e, but we did talk about this and we prefer to remove'.llquld_ln a. different .manner .than-~hls particular Mr. Marshal,l: Thank you, Mr 8arnds. Mr. Burrell.: I don!.t care. who.answer th. Is, In fact l tm going to klnd of make ~a statement, which .Includes.a question pr~ably. The Intent Is to somewhat s. ummarlze As I..understand It thl. s I.Ine dld not go Into operation last Summer, .Its been In operation during the winter season and ,herets been no summer experience wlth It a, all. The condensatlon problem which has arisen comes about for atleast ?wo'reasons;"One, cold weather; secondl~y., call .It, an error,'if you will, In the estimate of the amount of drier gas: from the Monopod which would be available to the system. The 'result of that being that you have an excessive Ilq'aJd drop-out, which you are Unab.le to'handle.on the. East Slde and. therefore had to flare ,he propane depropanlzer oVerhead at approximately/what rate, forwhat. period of time? There Is a question mark there;'= , Mr. Roberts: I believe we asked for permlsslon, or.n°tlfled you that. we had to go on emergency flare for a couple of days, In December at the rate of about ,wa million cub lc feet per day for each of those days,, and on January 22' as I '~'ecall, we asked 'again for permlsSslon to, that was , during the extreme 'cold',. as you ml'gh't recall,. W® asked for, Informed' ' . ,, you again of' the'emergency sltuatl'on and that we were on flare with the propanlzer overhead vapors, whiCh again amounted to about ?wa mi II IOn cubic feet per day', 2.1 t° be perclse. These were flared until we modified ~ the facilities at East Foreland, allowing us elevate .the pressures, where once,again 'It was our plan to put the depropanalzer overhead vapor back , -22- Into ~he system, which we did. It was probably about a mon,h, that tlme · , . . of flare of ~hat depropanlzer overhead ~ the second time lasted essentially , one month. I~. i~u~Pell~' ?hank you, Mr. Rober"ts. Did I state everything correctly as far as It went? Would you like to qualify what I said? Mr. Roberts: Well, I don~t want to present my testimony over' again, but Mr. Burrell: Correct what I sald~ please. Mr. Roberts: There were several things, ,hose Items that you Just mentioned certainly are true and again I thlnk, I think we place a lot of Impor, ance on the fact that we are operatlng'wlth a system In a range that leaves some question as to what data Is ac,ual ly right In the area of equilibrium factors. We're In the, we're out near the critical point. , There has not been a whole lot of experimental data performed on a methane- propane system at 1200 pounds at 26 . There ts Just not too many systems Ilke that around. With that addition to your comment, I think I would say you pre~ty well phrased' It. Mr. Burrell: You added one thing that essentlally, tha, Is, Itts .. a new system, Itts a new ,ype of system. There hasntt been much experience · wlth this, essentially. Mr. Roberts: Well, from an experimental standpoint, In trying to anticipate what will occur In advance of It actually being placed In opera~lon, whlch was our assignment to deslgn a system, we used wlth the best data avallable to us and we s,lll havent` discovered whether I, was accurate or not, but we're, we have licked the problem. Mr. Burrell: Do you have four proposed solu,lons to ,his Problem which . . . ~ .... ',, . ,. .... .'. .... ~,. ..... , ... , you have testi f led to? · . ,, ~ ....... - .... ~,,,.' . . ,~/ ..... ,;~ .' ...,, ,, .~ , ,~ . · l; i ,, . Mr. Roberts~ We have four Mr. 8urrell: At least four? Mr. Roberts: At least four, all of which are under study. Mr. Burrell: One of which Is actUally operational, Increased pressure? Mr. Roberts: One Is, we are ac,ually performing under one me,hod of correction, yes. Mr. Burrell: ' Mr. Gllbreth? Mr. Gl Ibreth: Yes, I have some. I understand you are ge,,Ing quite a few Iiqulds ,o the Eas, Side and theytre coming through In slug fashlon more or less. Are these mostly propane? Are they all propane? , Mr. Barnds: N°, this Is a comblnatlon. The analysis I cant, recall, I think itts about 40 percent propane, ~he balance being butanes or heavier hydrocarbons. ' ' Mr. Gl Ibm,h: Is there any market or any use'for 'his on the East . Side? Mr. Barnds: There, we are, yes, there Is a market for It. We are flash stablllzlng the Ilquld'through our system and pu~tlng In the 190 pound or 160 Pound Iow'pressure fuel system. Those flash vapors are then being burned In the Collier Plant, as fuel, In their modified fuel system. Residue liquids are bel. ng dellvered to the Tesoro Reflnery, when wetre able to and they~are belng u,I Ilzed as bol let fuel stock. · Mr. Roberts: Pardon me, Hr'. GI Ibreth. I would like to, I think, cOrreCt one statement there. If I may ltd like to refer to"the analysis. I believe Ray Indicated that It was 40 percent Propane with 'the rest being butanes and heavier. I think he meant to say, wl,h the rest~'' being ethane and , ~ lighter, with a very small amount of butane. Itts about 3:~ percent methane, about 44 percent, pardon me. Mr. Gllbreth: Is It possible to Install enough storage on ?he Eas, Side or enough equlpment to take care of thls slug capacity? Would I, be possible to utilize the Ilqulds ?hat are belng dropped, or are these coming In In such a volume that ?hey couldn't be? Mr. Barnds: you're talking about the rate or the volume? Mr, Gl Ibreth: Yes. Mr. Barnds: Well, the volume Is I000 barrels a day and we have no problem If we can take a I000 barrels per day at a controlled ra,e through our flash stabilization process and then In delivering gas volumes. · ~ Mr. GI Ibreth: Okay, you could use a I000. .Mr. Barnds: .There's no problem wl~h that. Mr. GIIbreth: Right. Mr. Barnds: The problem Is the rate at which they arrive as a result' of slugs coming much as liquid flows through a soda Straw. Mr. Gl Ibreth': are coming through at maybe a rate of 75,000 barrels per day? Mr. Barnds: Yes sir. I'see, .I belleve"Mr. 8arnds YoU testified fha, these · ' , ,. Mr. GIIbreth: Does thls occur for, say, your wh(51e slug to come , through, or Is l,.whlle yOu're plgglng. Is I, In,erml',,en, or. Mr. Barnds: Well the problem Is we don't have~'fluid arrlvlng as ,! the result of pigging. We have It as a result of bypaSsing gas or on , ~ line, and these Ilquld slugs are, I sald they were typical, but they are , of variable size. These flash receivers, these condensate receivers, . have about a 25 barrel w°rklng 'Capacl'b/, Now, .at a 75,000 barrel per , day rate you can recelvell,O00 barrels In something like 20 minutes. You can appreciate ,he p~oblem when we ge, It, a slug 'of 500 barrels or 200 barrels golng Into the condensate recelver, Wlth control valves, even snap acting control valves, we cantt.shut that thing, down In tlme to catch and control the Ilquld fl.ood Into one of the condensate receivers and flash the gas happens Is the level, goes to the .top of the recelver'and we shut In 'the marine line until .that Ilqu!d Is.able .to go of.f. th.rough the faclllty, so wetre in a position of Inter~rupt.!ng gas service, stopplng processing, openl ng up, Hr. Gl Ibreth: During this tlme that youtre swltchlng and so forth, are yOU Just packlng your marine line, the other Ilne? Hr, Barnds: Yes, In the event, I should qualify that, If both the marine lines have Ilquld arrlvlng at the same time, and. thls does happen, Because of our - volume of the slug, .capacity of the equipment we cantt get liquid In both marine lines at the facility.at one time, In whlch case both lines are shut-In and then we pack the system, I~r, Gilbreth: I believe Hr. Roberts, talking about your, the vapors from your depropanlzer that you have had to flare. I understand you to say that during that period of time these worked better and you experienced no problem, and I know that you have turned them in and out Intermittently. Do you have any guess as to Just how much of the stream would be necessary to flare, to let you' continue tO_operate, or Is It necessary to turn It out a hundred percent of 'the time? Now:/your call of hearing here doesntt give any idea, It Just says flaring for operational necessity. I~m Just wondering, does this Just mean 50 percent of the ti'me or I00 percent of the time or I0 percent ,of the time? I~r. Roberts: I~r. Gl Ibreth, If our operating at the higher pressure range prove successful, we won't, we will not flare them again. I~r. Gl lbreth:. I rea!l, ze ,hat.{ but now l.f It doesn't, based on ,he · . ,.~.. ..,~:. ;: ~ ,...~ ~,., ,~ .~ : .~ , ,, . ~ ~ experlence you have now, what would It be necessary ~o flare? I~r. Roberts: If i, acts exactly the same way, we're kind of living on borrowed time to be .put.,lng the deProPanizer overhead stream Into the pipeline system, knowing that we'Il get by for a week or ,en days and ,hen have a massive problem on our hands, requlrlng that we flare a full 35 million a day. So, I can',, I guess we haventt se, down and really. .. es, lmated how, how this wlll effec, the overall amoun,,~ the ,o,al volume of gas ,ha, would be flared In each case, but I can assure you I, would be much greater opera, lng ,he way you sugges,ed, ,hah ,he way we're reques,lng. I~r. Gl Ibreth: The 2~ mllllon a day that you have on the depropanlzer, Is It possible to ,urn just a certain portion of that Into the system, or do you have to ,urn It el,her all In or all ou,? Mr. Roberts: This Is one of the areas that we are going ,o be Invest- Iga, lng, and as we Indicated One of our plans Is to, during the warmer mon,hs, divert as much of that depropanizer overhead In,o ,he system and we'll use that same logic ,oo.~ If we have a problem with a hundred percen, of ,he propane going In,o. the system we will cer,aln.!y at,empt to find out If we have a problem with nine percent going Into ,he sys,em, or 50 -: . percen, going In,o the system and operate at the level that we can flare 'less gas. Our In,eh, Ion, of course, is to deliver ,he maxlmum amount of gas ?o the East Side, '~r. Ollbreth: You haventt had the tlme yet ,o arrive at anything like that? -27- I~r. Rober-~s."' That Is rlght, We're - we're of course very hopeful that we won't have'fo' flare any' ~io~e'§as, 'but We JUSt 'simply cantt say , that we wontt have tO.' Hr. Gl Ibreth: '~Your gaS., aftet~,.i,t'.ComeS 'to the :East"$1de, some of it goes On toward Swanson River. Is it possible that these Ilqulds In anyway could move on down the Ilne to Swanson Rlver and be relnJected there or does It go through' the compressor station? Hr. Roberts= Contractually wetre limited to no free Ilqulds In the Ilne going to Swanson River. , Hr, Burrell: Excuse me, Hr. GIIb~eth, If you~11 walt Just a second, what~ Is the mechanlcal problem? I understand the contractual problem~ but I dontt understand the mechaniCal one, please explain why. Mr. Barnds: Hr. Keller, get up and we!Il go through the flow. We~re talking now In the event we have~a..:..tlquld carry-over? Mr. Burrell: Yes. Mr. Barnds: .A liquid carry-over, If It did resUlt, would go down the 16 Inch plpeilne ~o the KPL Junction, and there we have a hlgh pressure .. large volume scrubber Ins,ailed. This scrubber wlll then trap liquids and allow the gas to flow Into ,he Swanson River Field through a control valve. The Ilqu'Ids. are dropped Into the'lO" Iow pressure gas line..They '. then run to the Col I let Plant and are recovered In a serles of scrubber arrangements through the tank and then they're carried Into the liquid ., : storage at that point, klnd.of similar to the liquids at East Foreland, The reason for this Is virtually that at both the Coiller Plant'and the Swanson, River, Plant wetre going r'lght to a samll capa~:t,,,'~ scrubber Into l~he field compressor, and they can't handle that gas. f4r. Burrell: .The answer to the question Is the caPacity doesn't consist I'n Swanson' River to Scrub out those Ilqulds, Is that right? , · , Mr. Barnds: Yes, well we have ,the capaclfy Installed at `he KPL · J unct I on ." Mr. Burrell: Yes,'.. but you"cantt W.lth the compressor youtve got. At the moment the compressor can ti handle that. Mr. Barnds: Yes, `hat~s right.. Mr. Burrell: Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. GI Ibreth, go ahead. Mr. Gllbre`h: I think that '1 can see why, but ltd like to ask, why cantt you restrict your production rates to mlnlmlze the problem? Mr. Roberts: We can.- Mr. GI Ibre`h: .Can you, can you res,rlct production rates ? Mr. Roberts: Yes sl.r. Mr. Gl Ibre,h: By .what? . Mr. Roberts: From about I10,000 barrels a day to about 30~000 barrels a day, so maybe a 1,000 barrels a day. would have to be shut-In. Mr. GIIbreth: Or 2½ roll lion cubic feet a day? Mr. Roberts: Yes sir. Mr. Gl Ibreth': You mentioned, Mr. Roberts, In your testimony, that from your turblne'expander you werett running at capaclt7 or needed more throughput all the way ~through. Is 'It' possible'to r~cycle any of the material ,hat Is golng through with your high content without dropou,? Hr. Barnds: Yes, Hr. Gilbreth, that Is, If youtll visualize ,hat · a little blt, yout ll see that yout ll have a stream'golng around and around with the, with the same volume resulting going down the plpellne, and still ~ith the same amount of propane, that eventual ly has to get Into that line. Mr. Gl Ibreth: I misunderstood, I thought you sal'd I, would be more -29- efficient and It would drop-out .more If It were operating' at more nearly des Igned capacl · Hr. Roberts: Thatts., that's true but It follows a path, John, If you dontt mind helping me. ~ .... .. ., Hr. GI Ibre?h: That leads Into my next question. Hr. Roberts: ms we condense more in the ex. pander. !twlll fall out Into that drum right there and be fed to the depropanlzer. The propane must go overhead and simply be added back Into the gas system. So If I have the expander running at maxlmum efficiency, I still have propane. If you're referring to the comment made about butane, that Is true, we would remove the butanes, which Is only a very small amount of the total liquid condensatlon, and we think the proper way to s~lve that problem Is redeslgn of the expander, but we do not. think it would 'affect the solution to the prob I em. klr. GI Ibreth: You've had this problem now for a month, a month and .'{ a half? Mr. Roberts: Yes sir. Hr. Gl Ibreth: I know from contact you've made wlth the Commlttee ?hat you have been Iooklng at It for qulte some time. Do you have any feel at all rlgnt now for the..tlmi, ng.that you'.re looking at, for a .solution'.'? ,I,.!'know depends on a lot ,Of..things~:?atts.Y.0Ur be, s?,..~uess right now as to when you will be able to solve this problem? Hr. Roberts: Well, that's, thatt, s been ~lr. Gl Ibreth: .{,. know,.YOU asked ....ti I I Sepl~ember I ~ but Mr. Roberts: As I explained before the, the crunch will come, I think we'll have the solution to the type of procedure that we want to operate at, you know, how we want to operate the system, by late spring, but then to get the facl Iltles that are requlred to ~et us operate under that schedule, will requlre longer, more than likely longer than normal dellvery times and then the time to Install them Is added Into our estlmate of September I. · , Hr. Gllbreth: Do you anticipate that thls problem wi II exlst after ,. ,, the temperatures warm up? Hr. Roberts: We're very hopeful that they will not, but we have ... no assurance. One set of our data says that we will have. Hr. Gilbreth: I believe you made the statement somewhere that you dld not expect temperature to drop below 26 degrees F. 'Are your lines buried all the way? Mr. Rober,s: Yes, on shore they are. Mr. Gilbreth: Yes, onshore I mean. Mr. Roberts: Yes. Mr. Gllbre,h: Do you have any temperature profiles or measurements on the line to know what happen? Mr. Roberts? Well, we know that depending upon the ambient temperature being experienced at the time that we operate we have experienced some 26 degree temperatures both at Granite Point Junction and at, my under- standing, at the East Foreland complex. Current. ly; I believe those temper- atures are abou, 30 degrees and 28 degrees, an additional two degree drop through the Inlet. Mr. GI Ibreth: Did you testify, Mr. Roberts, that one of these possibil- I,les Was using, maYbe, I.I million a day for the treater? You did say that you did not know whether a portion of this stream might be able to · .: · . go in. You didn't have informatlon on that, but might It not be possible · .. that If you could use I.I million per day for the treaters, the remainder of the depropanlzer could go Into the system and not be any trouble? Mr. Roberts: Of course we can calculate agaln uslng the ~wo correlations and we~ve done this.by removing a volume of depropenlzer overllea0 aha then calculatlng the results of dewpolnt, so the total residue stream, we flnd that It definitely helps, but that in case of the lower correlation we don~t need any help and in the case of the higher correlation we still have a slight problem, This Is the reason Itm saylng, that led me to the concluslon that It Is quite likely that It will be a comblnatlono We~ll take a lit-fie depropanlzer overhead out, we might have to add a little dry gas, we~.ll operate at a sllghtly higher pressure. Wetll do a comblnatlon~ In my viewpoint at this very early date, IfPs quite likely we'll' do a combination of things to solve the problem. Hopefully by removing some depropanlzer overhead and operating at a higher pressure level we will not have a liquid problem year round and we'll not' have to use dry gas. Mr. Marshall: I have a little problem with the'uSe of words In your application; The real essence of what you're asking for Is the, we add . unto Rule 2 of Conservation Order 103 and 104, merely the Words: ' or .,, opera,lonal necessity.' N°w I id II:ke to pose thls q~estlon. Do you feel , that this problem that we're Iooklng at thls.morning Is basically a plpe- line shake-down problem? Roberts: I ~hlnk It Is more extenslve than that, sir. Mr. Marshal I: Do you look at It as a temporary problem resulting , from a unforeseen pipeline shake-down operations through extreme physlcal circumstance? Is thls baslcal.ly what we're looking at? Mr'. Roberts: . We sort of think it Is a temporary thing, or we would have asked for a much longer period than September I. We think It can .. , .' , . , , , ,, be solved, we think It was an undetermlnant problem at the time we were mak Ing the des I gn. Hr. Marshall: Well then, then It appears to me that, that rather men Just operational necessity, which has no Implication at all of any sor~ of emergency, sl,ua,lon, that what we're really looking at, I would like to think, In my mlnd, we're looking at an emergency operational necessity. The reason I~m suggesting ~hls, because Just the word operational necessity Itself, has no Implication of any kind of time Ilmlt or any kind of unusual circumstances. Operational necessity Is, for Instance Its an operational necessi~/ to store oll that you .produce from oll wells, untll you can shlp It. We we have used this word operational necessity In times before we had our no-flare orders, that the flaring' of caslnghead gas was an , . operational necessltT. I think this Is a different kettle of fish we're · talking about now and I look at an emergency' as one where there's maybe human safety or operational safety Involved and I.really belleve that Just the words operational necesslly, don~t give us the real, true plcture. I, myself, feel that. youtre in a more desparate stralt than Just a. operational · necessity. This Is, Is something that happened, that was unforeseen, you ! .. certalnly didn't design the pipeline to act this way, itts something that was an extremely complex problem. It develOped thor6 were hazards, and there were oper~atlonal problems that fit into this thing but baslcal ly we're not going to.have this problem next summer because the bugs will be out of the system and I look at I, as a sort of a short term thlng. · Not necessarl ly.Just an operational necessity; It's ~ore than that, .It's something that!.was unforeseen and It Is, I thlnk, an .. emergency type of operational necess I..?y. , -33- Mr. Anderson: Mr. Marshall. If I may. when I se, °u, ,he order of ,he hearing, we are going ,o ask for an amendmen, of the rule ,o Include opera,lonal necessl,y based upon I,ems of equlpmen,, maln,enance and o,her I temg. The fl rs, par, of ,he hearing has been concerned wl,h ,he necessll~/ of ,he con, lnuing of ,he flaring of ,he depropanlzer Overhead, on an emergency basis. I generally agree wl,h your analysis of ,his si,ua, ion,. The ,arm emergency Is very difficul, ,o deflne and of course Invariably unfore- seeable abl 11t7 Is of,eh In ,he definl,lon and some, lmes I, Is no,. Of,an ,imes emergency Is cai led a pressing necessil~/ or exigency, requiring Immedla,e ac, Ion. And I ,hlnk Irrespec, lve of ,he which deflni,lon you maybe use, you have a ,rue emergency si,ua,Ion here because I, was unforeseeable, al,hough ,ha, may no? always' be '~a'n'elemen,'." 'The comPanies dldr..nO,~".de~lgn ,he system no, ,0 work, s° therefore I, Was unforeseeable.` "1, cer,al.nly requires. Immedla,e ac, Ion, ,ha, Ts one of ,he 'reasons we're having ,he hearing today. The other par, of ,he Immedla,e ac, ion Is our urgent s,udles ,ha, are going' on ,o solve ,he problem and of course, lastly, 'if you want ,o Incorpora,e the concep, of pressing need, we car,airily have a presSing need. So, ,here,ore, our reques, Is couched In terms of emerger~cy and we wi II also .., request amendmen, of ,he rule ,o recognlze opera,lonal necessity based on ,he later ,es,lmony. Does that clarify? , , Mr. Marshall: Well. would you b® in any way ,he~ modlfying your language ,ha, you composed In your appllca, lon? ' Mr. Anderson: No s'Ir, we would not. We would s,I II re,aln opera,lonal necesslty.'fT, hat',..'wodfd be based on ,es,lmony ye, ,o be presen,ed. Mr. Marshall: Well, It'll save any fur,her ques,lons ,111 I hear · further testimony, bu, as I said, I' s,lll have pr'obiems wl,h ,he words Just .34- operational necessity, because I belleve that with Just those words, some could say well, operational necessity Is almost,'you have to operate to produce oll or gas. Mr. Anderson: To make It clear, once more; In ,his firs, part of this ,estlmony we are not making this request on the basis of the amendment proposed, we are making I., on the basis of emergency., That's for clarification. Mr. Marshal I: Thank you. Mr. Burrel I.: Mr. Anderson, that~ helps a blt. As I understand Mr. : , Robert~'s request was tO be allowed ,0 flare the depropanlzer overhead ,111 September I, 1973 and that's n°t"lncluded in the call of hearing or your request then. This Is the emergency situatlon whlch you addressed yourself to, with ,ha, In queStiOn. 'Is that correct, sir? And that would be at the ra,e of 2 to 4 mllllon a day, a maximum of 4, a minimum of 2. 'Is that correct, sir? Mr, Roberts: Pardon me, that's 'he volume of ,he' depropanizer overhead and we might have to flare the tOtal 'now, or 'we mlgh, have to flare something less.. We're only gOing ~o flare'what'ls'.necessary'~'. ~ (;'> ii'-* Mr. Burrel'l: I understand that. Mr. Roberts: -Not to exceed the 4 mi Illon. Mr. Bur'rell: Not to exceed 4'!'add?:/~,t might be 2.: Mr. Roberts: Yes. Hr. Burrell: Might even be less than Mr. Roberts: Yes. Mr.. Burrel I: If you can uti II'ze part of it. Mr. Roberts: Yes sl"r. Mr. Burrell: What IS the total amount you're currently allowed f late under Conservatlon Order N0~." : , 14, at the three platforms and the West Foreland Production site? Hr. Roberts: As I recall, wetre allowed to flare fOr:safe~y. Hr. Burrell: Excuse me, this Is the safety flare. on the four, platforms wetre COncerned wlth. It's I mllllon for flare booms and on King Salmon it's I;3, and we're al lowed 300,000 at the onshore facl I I'ry. Hr. Burrell: What's that total? Mr. Roberts: Six, It's one~'~tw°, three, four, five, slx, aboUt 6.3 in the area. Hr. BUrrel I: Your al lOwed t° f late a ;total`. of' 6.~,' dOes that Include the onshore production Sire't°°? ' Hr,. Roberts: Yes, that ~ s correct. Hr. Burrell: So, you're curredtly allowed, for safety flares, 6.3. You're proposing to Increase that by some 40 perCent maximum, to roughly ten or so, Is that co'rrect? You:'re asking to flare no more than 10.3 , , total, safety flare and depropanlzer Overhead at,maximum flat®, Is that ,, correct? ,,t · Mr. Roberts: Yes sir. I~r. Burrel I: I just wanted to get some correlation between the numbers here. That would be you maximum request under thl's first part of the hearing for emergency sltuatlon? Roberts: Well, I hate to put it together, and that explains my --- Mr. Burrell: I'm trying to Just draw some type of-"*Comparlson between what you're currently allowed to flare for safety and how much more you're now asking for. -36- Mr. Burrell: Is that accurate for that purpose then? Mr. Anderson: Yes, and as long as its clear that we're not requestlng a ,o,a I. Mt'. Burrell: 6.3 you're currently allowed for safe~y flare? Your asking for a maximum of an additional four million'cubic feet per day? Mr. AnderSon: Yes Mr. Burrell: Of depropanizer overhead tl I I September I? · Mr. Anderson: As' I understand the testimony, hopefully It wlll be something substantlally less. Hr. Roberts: we're getting Into slightly a difficult area and let me explain why. Wetre talking about an Instance of an emergenc~ situation ~ ,, that wetre requesting some time to solve and wetre adding., numbers ~°gether. This Isntt ~o preclude the 'fact that other emergencies might not arise and ,hat~s the reason I hate; . . ~ , Mr. 8urrell: Mr. Roberts~ your reques, as I understzx>d It, your emergency request, If you wi II, the flrst'.part of the"~hearlng, was to flare a maximum of 4 mil lion cUblc feet per day from the depropanlzer - overhead. I s that right? .... Mr. Roberts: R'ight. Mr. Butte I I: TI II September I. Mr. Robert, s: Yes. Mr. Anderson: A point of verification. I think the Commil-,ee recog- nizes that if other emergency situations came up no, related to this problem, / ,ha, then we would have to request additional authority if ,ha, were necessary. Mr.~ Burrel I: Wel I, the existing order· already provides' that you , f I are I n .the event of emergency. ,37- · Mr. Anderson: Yes, Hr. Burrel I: Then our problem Is to define emergency, and I dontt want to open that can of peaches. Hr. Gl Ibreth? Mr. GI Ibreth: WI.th regard to this depropanlzer volume that's being flared, Mr. Roberts. The safety, the volume that's already permitted for the safety flare at the West Foreland facl Ilty. If 'It beco~s necessary to turn the depropanl zer to 'f late, :" cou Id any part of thl s be preserved, the existing amount being 'flared. In other words Irf yOU have 300,000 a day to the flare now, 'and you're going to pu, another 4 mllllon In there, or whatever Ifwlll'be, Is your plplng and everything such that you can shu, Off the first 300,000? Mr. Roberts: 'Yes sir. Mr. Burrel I: i ';;~hi~k '"thai:' covers ',he f l rS,' :' Par, ' Of ,he i~e'St.imony. We'll take a fifteen mlnU:te meter - feeding break. .... ~"?"" Mr, Burrell: We'll' rec°nVene t~'e"hea'rlng;at:fl~'Is'flme; Mr. Anderson. ,, Mr. Anderson: Yes. ' Mr. Burrel I: We'll prOceed with the second portion of this hearing.. Mr. Anderson: Yes, we Will now have ,estlmony presented by Mr. Ray , Barnds, codcernlng the need to amend the rules to provide for relief in cases of operational necessl'b/occasi'oned by equlpment malntanence and other Instances. Mr. Barnds: Thank you. , Mr. Burrell: ExcuSe me, before you go ahead, Mr. Barnds, would you . run over that one more time slowly, what you just sald, Mr'.' Anderson? Mr. Anderson: We wi II now deal with the testimony concernlng ,he · need to amend the rule, rules to Conservation Orders 103 and 104, to prov de for teller under' conditions of operational necessity occasioned by equipment mal ntenance or other I nstan'ces. , . , , Hr. Burrell: Including the exlstlng sltuatlon, for excludlng the exlstlng situation? Mr. Anderson: We ha~/e framed this as excluding the existing situa- tion, treating that as an emergency. Mr. Burrell: Thank you, that clarlfles It very beautifully as to your Intent. Mr, Barnds: I will now discuss the amendment of Rule 2 of both Con- servation Orders 103 and 104 to permit relief In cases of operational necess 117. We are limited to the amount of redundancy we can bul Id Into our systems, especlal ly on the offshore platforms, for space Is a design con- slderatlon. These systems and their components on' the platforms and In the gas system require periodic planned preventative malntenance requiring temporary shutdowns. To II lustrate, compressors require maintenance ranglng ,, from spark plug and lubricating oll changes to major overhauls, Newly ,. Installed systems require debugglng and repeated shutdowns during lnitlal startup to bring equlpment on-Ilne. Ha Jot Ihstall. att'~)ns.,.'~,suCh!~as?~;the Trading · Bay Productlon Fac111t7 and Liquid EXtract'iOnr;P.l:ant'~requlre periodic plant · turnarounds to depressure, purge, and Inspect crltlcal pressure vessels for safe operational reasons. I could continue wlth I llustratlve examples but In the Interest of time', I will .be happy to furnlsh a list of typical other Instances if you so request. This .llst wlll be illustrative only since there may be other cases whlch would constitute operational necessity. By amendment of Rule 2 of both Orders, thls perlodlc necessl~y will be recognized. As In the case of emergency we wl II propose to notify the Commit-~ee of any such occurrences wl.thln 96 hours after occurrence. I wi II,be pleased to answer any. questlons which you. may have. Thank you. Mr. Burrell:. Thank you. Mr. Barnds. Did you 'put a time Ilml, on your 'operatlonal necessI,y arising out of these ,ypes of circumstances"? Hr. Barnds: Well, we proposed fo report them WI,hit, ~6 Mr. Burrell: Then it could be. In theory at least, a con,lnulng thlng over ?he life of ,l~e field, aa I understand, fl'om ,he way you.phrased your req ues ,? Mr. Barnds: Yes. a plan, turn-around obviously could Involve weeks. whereas a compressor mal ntenance project chang lng spark plugs can consume an hour. Mr. Burre l I': D° you have any thou.ghts On some ,ype of res,fiction of ~lme? Whatts, ,he longest peri'od o~ ,line you're going to be? Mr. Barnds: I haVent` ,hough~ aboUt ,he Ionges, period of ,Ime. Examples of ,hlngs of thls'~na,ure - we~ve had a recen, occurrence on ,he Monopod pla,form but 1 ~ve had .occasion ,o communlca,e wI,h Mr. Gl Ibre,h. relating ,o hlm the maintenance problems. 'wlth alt l~roblems ,hat we're had. Each one of .,hese things would h'ave ,o be deal, wl,h. I would Imaglne;~ on ,he si?ua, Ion a, ,he ,line If It were a leng,hy shu,-down period. Certainly a plan, turn-around Is pre-planned, bu, I,s a, least a year In advance. Mr. 8urrell: What Would be the time that you would want ,o go ,o flare at the plant ,ermlnal? .Wha, would you an,lclpa,e you would need'at the p I an, ,erml na I ? Mr. Barnds: I mlgh, defer ,o Mr. Rober,s. He mlgh, have an Idea. plant turn-around. ,he ones ,ha, I~ve.been Involved In. these are no, In ,he S,a,e of Alaska. can las, for t~o months or t~o weeks depending on wha? the project Is. A' ,urn-around Is an all Inclusive description. Mr. 8urrell: Any addl,lonal commen,s on ,ha?. Mr..Rober,s? Mr. Roberts: I might add this, that the type of equlpmen, that we're looking at, and again we get Into the definltlon~ I §uess, but I thlnk If a turn-around or a preventative maintenance program exceeded ten days or ~eo week~, It would probably be because of an emergency situation. Mr. Burrel.l: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Are there any questions? Mr. Roberts: I' II, let me say this, In that respect, the reason It would be strung out Is that somethlng that you didn't anticipate occured i n'"~3'Ui;" j3'r~g'~am'.,,:"' ','l~,~'~.~'~,~'i".h::g'""~:~'~'~:~'~'l~'~n't. ~/:~i'" ~.~'nd:'::~i~-~-'~a'l":i"~':'"0f the vessel ex~edlngly ?hln, and Ins?earl of put?lng It back In?o opera?lon you n~ have 5~e?hlng ?ha? you didn't con?empla?e. ~r. Burrel I: An opera?lona. I e~rgen~, perhaps? ~r. R~er?s: I don~? ~an? 7o leave ?he Impression ?hat I ~hlnk ~e~re going ?o be turning the plan? around ?ha?, tha? would las?, you kno~, ~n?hs or ~eeks. However ?o ~uallfy ?hem any differen?ly- the very hex? '?I~ ~e have one, $~thlng ~111 occur ?ha? didn~? we dldn~? contempla?e. I?~s very dlfflcult to .... Mr,. Anderson:. Mr.~.Cha'Irman., as I understand Mr.. Roberts's testimony . and Mr; Barnds's, ,he opera?lonal necessl?y would be a planned, predlc?able p~gram whereby equlp~n, would be examined, say In ,he ,urn-around si?ua' ,Ion, and in 'he ~urse of ,ha, examlna?lon a plece of equlpmen? may be to ,he poin? where I, needs ~ple?e replacemen,, perhaps, In which case ?his. Is an unforeseen ~ndl,lon, origl'nally, ~Ing ou, of ?he opera?lonal ne~ssiW, so ,hat you actually would'be In an e~rgenW si?ua?lon under ?hose ~ndi?lons, 5ecause"you had no, an, lCiPa,ed ,he'equlpmen, replace- ment. Of course .... Mr. Burrell: Hr. Anderson, would It be fair to say then that you would commence a scheduled turn-around, say ,he last week. Durlng that period whlle you flare~ that: would be operatlonal necessi~/, If~ during ,he course of that week you discover thin walls on some bol let or some- thing and Itts going to be another week or month, then It becomes an emergency to switch from one to another, Is that as I, appears? Mr. Anderson: Tha, would be my understanding. Mr. Burrell: Mr. GIIbreth? Hr. Gl Ibreth: Wel I, I dontt know If I agree with that, to me you're In the business to produce oll and gas, out here and you have equlpment fai ling ,', all the time. Thatts one of the hazards of the operation, and fha, ts the purpose of your turn-around, even If you do have a thln wall section. I don~t think It's an emergency, as you think. Thatts the pUrpose of It, bu, I~m just making a statement. This periodic necessity that we're talklng about, I dontt understand how I, could function 'as you proposed. I believe the wording that you proposed Is that the gas to be flared upon Commit-,ee approval could not be flared except aS may be au,horlzed by · the Comml~"~ee In case of emergency or operational necessity. Do you Intend by requesting this approval thls way ,hat you wi I'1 get Committee approval. every, line that you want to shut-In a piece of equipment you're going to have to flare some gas on It as operational necessl*y? Are you going to be down for a day I nspectl.ng something or something like that? Hr. Anderson: That would be my understand'lng, that you would. Hr. GIIbreth: I tm having trouble In my own mind trying to decipher . , what'wetre trylng to do here I'n terms of, you know, emergency and normal operating needs and how they would relate to the flaring of gas. Of course -42- the Committee is concerned about minimizing ~gas flaring and I wonder if you could go on just a little bit deeper, on what this operational necessl~, un~er what conditions, how It will function. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Gilbreth, let me , may be perhaps I could ask a question. As the rules now read, we're not permitted to flare gas except the safety pi lot or emergency situation? Mr. Gllbreth: Yes sir. Mr. Roberts: Alrlght, as operator we have a problem of saying we've got to shut-down the compressor to change a spark plug and Its that type of a example that we're saying:,~ cani~we call that an emergency, or do we have to shut-in the oil field while we're changing the spark~plug? And Its wording, s~me slmple word, phrase that would let us change the spark plugs, you know without breaking the law? Mr. Gl Ibreth: Sure. Mr. Roberts: And that's our, that's our request in a nut shell. That's our need for having the words of that nature in there. Mr. Anderson: The wordlng is designed to differentiate between the two situatlons, emergency ~and operational necesslty. Mr. Burrell: And we'd like It very much If you would dlfferentla~"e~, o?' course. That's our problem. Mr. Anderson: Well I'll take a try here. An emergency situation, without being locked Into any definitive term, ordlnarlly contemplates an unexpected or sudden occurrence of an event whlch requires Immediate action. Alright, in the situation of the depropanlzer overhead vapor ,~, flar'ing request, this fal:.ls Into that category, because of the sudden accumulation of the liquids In this line. It was unforeseeable, or thereby creating the emergency. As dlstlngulshed from that term, we Know, -43- and as Mr. Gilbreth has pointed Out, that the equipment at the facilities and on the platform is going to require periodic maintenance? That's the nature of the animal. To classify that instance as an emergency, it is somewhat difficult, because this is a predictable, and not a pressing necessity, but its a routine or normally predictable necessity, which can be planned ahead, and that would be my distinction if this helps the Comm I ttee. Mr. Marshall: Pardon me, if you had used up, I think we're all just groping with words now, and i think we have to grope with them, we've got to flnd the right word, the matters of repalrs and maintenance. Do you think that this, these words cover what we're looking at? Operational necessities required by crltlcal repalrs or maintenance. In other words puttlng In spark plugs is critical, you're not going to work without, lt. Does this language help you any, crltlcal repair maintenance? Mr. Anderson: I confer here, but the only, I would, are you relating critical to maintenance, as well as to repairs? Mr. Marshal l~ It's critical as far as the operation goes. In other words, no spark plugs, its not going to work. However, shutting-down to paint the"cyllnder block wouldn't fall in that category. I'm just Trying to relate It to some required operation. I use the word critical, meaning critical to the operation. Mr. Roberts: Either, either at that point in time, or will become critical If you don't do something about It. Like an oli change, you don't have, you don't have to shut-down to change the oil on that particular day, but if you don't change It, In a week from now it's going to fall apart. -44- Mr. Gllbreth: What, let m~ ask a question of Mr. Roberts, your normal maintenance shut-downs, I know we've had some testimony in cases in the past, but I don't have any Informatlon readily at hand here, but my recollection, If your normal maln?enan:e shutdown In the past. your'ye hacl up until now, perhaps less than 15 days per quarter, for normal maintenance and repalrs. Is this about your experience? Mr. Roberts: I belleve you're referring, correct me if I'm wrong,"your referring to an order that al lows us to use gas well gas for lift and then flare 15 days per quarter. Mr. Gi Ibreth: I believe that was based on testimony that you presented showing that was your frequence, wasn't it? Mr. Roberts: Well you see 15 day's a quarter would allow us to take care of the emergency type situations, and would also al Iow us to take care of the lengthy turn-around situation if we could get our 15 days a quarter In the right part of the quarter. But it was for different purposes. It was relatlng Itself to gas well gas. Mr. Gilbreth: Yes, I realize that,.but I was saying, or trying to recall some of the testimony with' regard to your shut-down and maintenance~ ,. and so forth. Mr. Roberts: Are you Mr. Gilbreth: Alrlght, let me ask this, Mr. Roberts: Well, let me ask this question first, Mr. Gl lbreth, If you don't mind. Are you asklng, can we plan routine maintenance to a per!od of days In a quarter? Mr. Gl Ibreth: No, that wasn't my question, i was trying to get some idea of how much time you're actually having the shut-down or repair for routine maintenance. Are we talking a 180 days a year, or one day a month, or what? I don't think the Commll-fee would want to give you a blanket, -45- say lust any time you want to shut-down to do something, you know. I was wondering what kind of volume. Mr. Roberts: Well, plugs, plugs sometimes require a change once a month, and sometimes once a week. You get, sometimes you get four plugs, I don't know how to answer your question, to be honest with you. Mr. Howard: Mr. Chairman, would you consider going off the record here for a minute to let us discuss this thing. Mr. Burrell: Yes, we' ! I go off the record, Mr. Howard. Mr. Burrell: Back on the record. Does anybody have any additional questions of the witness? Mr. Anderson: That concludes that part of the testimony, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burrell: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. ^nderson~ And If I may I'd like to wrap things up a blt. Mr. Burrell: Please do. Mr. Anderson: Gentlemen, you've heard the testimony here this morning and briefly summarized, Mr. Roberts testified as to the complexities of the Marathon-Union system and th is system was i nsta I led at an expend iture of approximately 26 roll lion dollars. He also testified with respect to the problem of liquid accumulations In the System, that the system was designed with the greatest care and the best technology and judgment available, but in spite of this utmost care, this liquid accumulation problem has occurred creating a emergency situation which requires immediate relief. I think It is particularly Important to stress the testimony of both witnesses, that out of a total approxlmately 35 mlllion cublc feet per, day of gas taken into the system, under this proposal only approximately 2~~ million cub~lc feet per day would be flared, at least In the winter -46- months, till the ~roble~ can be solved and this, ~ve're talkin~ about the de~ropanizer overhead vapors. ~r. ~arnds testified concerning the problems in connection with the submarine portions of the line, clearing the line of liquids and the handling of liquid surge at the onshore facilities on the East Side. You've also heard testimony concerning our plans and areas of study to solve the problem. ~r. Roberts testified, I believe, that in the course of these urgent and ongoing studies, other areas may be developed. Therefore, we request that the order which the Committee may enter allow the continued emergency flaring as necessary of the depropanlzer overhead vapors until September I, 1973. The testimony revealed that, hopefully, this entire period will not be required and that flaring will not be required at all times. We will of course keep you fully advised of the progress of these studies and be pleased to'furnish any specific information, other specific information, which you may request. You've also h~ard testimony concerning the need for relief in cases of operational necessity~ In recognition of the probably future occurrence of these events, we request that Rules I and 2 be amended ~as set forth in the Notice of Hearings, so as to recognize the matter of operatlonal necessity. Thank you. Mr. Burrelll Thank you Mr. Anderson. Is there anybody in the audience who has any questions, comments or chooses to make ~ statement or testify? Do you have any questions? Mr. Marshall: Just one further question of Mr. Anderson. In your c~osing statement, I believe you did, In your final sentence, ask that Rule I and 2 be modified? ~, -47- Mr. Anderson' That shou Id be corrected, ~.ir. !.iarshal I, i f I di d say that. Both Rules 2, Conservation Order 103 and 104. Mr. Marshall: Thank you. Mr. Butte I I: Any further questions, Mr. Reeder do you have any? Mr. Reeder: No. Mr. Burrell: We'll go off the record here. Mr. Burrell: To get back to the record now, In view of the ti me problem here we've got to issue an order today. And the first portion of it, needless to say this will be smoothed up a bit, It was written rather hastily. The first portion of it deals with the Initial request with respect to the depropanizer overhead and that is as follows: "Flaring . and gas from the depropanizer overhead as required to avoid condensation · of excess liquids In the Cook I nl'et Gas System, is hereby authorlzed untii 7:00 AM, March 24, 1973. "The Committee maY extend this authorization by Admlnlstratlve Order or orders but not beyond 7:00 AM September I, 1973. The second part deals with the written request to amend Rule 2, and this by the way, applles to both 103 and '104, both the Trading Bay Field and the McArthur Field. The Order as requested will be granted, with the following sentence added to it. '"Any such flaring or venting of any gas in cases of operational necessity, in excess of 15 days per calendar quarter per platform, other than that.required for safety flares shall requlre Committee approval. The Intent there is to this covers the same 15 days as currently permitted for flaring gas well gas in cases of operational necessity. The two periods are not cummulative. It's a maximum period of flaring any gas from any platform for 15 days per calendar quarter without Committee approval. That's true whether its flaring at the platform or at the Trading Bay Production Fa¢!lity. Are there any questions on that? We'll adjourn. -49- TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT OF RULE 2 OF CONSERVATION ORDERS 103 AND 104 TO ALLOW THE FLARING OR VENTING OF CASINGHEAD GAS IN CASES OF OPERATIONAL NECESSITY I will Orders now discuss the amendment of Rule 2 of both Conservation 103 and 104 to permit relief in cases of operational necessity. We are limited to the amount of redundancy we can build into our systems, especially on the offshore platforms,for space is a design consideration. These systems and their components on the platforms and in the gas system require periodic planned prevehtative maintenance requiring' temporary shutdowns. To illustrate, compressors require maintenance ranging from spark plug and lubricating oil changes to major overhauls. Newly installed systems require de'bugging and repeated shutdowns during initial startup to bring equipment on-line. Major installations such as the Trading Bay. Production Facility and Liquid Extraction Plant require periodic plant turnarounds to depressure, purge, and inspect critical pressure vessels for with illustrative be happy to furnish safe operational reasons. I could continue examples but in the interest of time, I will a list of typical other instances if you so will be illustrative only since there may be would constitute operational necessity. By request. This list other cases which amendment of Rule 2 of both Orders, this periodic necessity will be recognized. As in the case of emergency we will propose to notify the Committee of any such occurrences within 96 hours after occurrence. I will be pleased to answer any questions which you may have. Thank you. TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF FLARING DEPROPANIZER OVERHEAD VAPORS - TRADING BAY PRODUCTION FACILITY - PRESENTED BEFORE THE ALASKA STATE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 23, 1973 - CONSERVATION FILES 119 AN.D 120 Testimony by Ray M. Barnds My name is Ray Barnds. I am the District Production Superintendent for the Union Oil Company of California, Anchorage,District, Alaska. My purpose .here,today is to discuss the problem of operating the dual marine pipeline and the East Foreland liquid handling facilities, which have necessitated the flaring of the depropanizer overhead vapors .at the Trading Bay Production Facility. As Mr. Roberts has testified and Mr. James E. Churchhas previously testified, during the May 11, 1972, public hearing, the facilities at the East Foreland marine line terminus were designed to handle ,, potential condensed liqUids in the marine pipelines at a controlled , rate. Previous 'te'stimony has established that these facilities were designed to operate during pipeline pigging operations and during those times that the Liquid Extraction Plant was bypassed or operating ~in an upset condition. The operating plan developed for which the facilities were designed was to pig any accumulated liquids out of the 16" West Side onshore lines. These l iqui~ds were to be pigged from the West Foreland produc- tion facility to Granite Point, at which point instrumentation was installed to divert liquids into one of the two marine pipelines. The liquid storage capacity of each of the two marine lines is in excess of 9,000 barrels, each line therefore, provides the needed liquid storage capacity for the liquid accumulat'~ion resulting from as much as 7 days downtime at the LEX Plant to be removed from the 16" West Side pipeline. Foll'owing removal of the liquids from the 16" onshore line, the fluid diverting valve would open and the second of the two marine pipelines would return to normal gas delivery service. Referring to Exhibit A, at this point .in the liquid removal program, it was planned to launch pipeline pigs at Granite Point in the marine pipeline containing the liquid. The liquid would . then be displaced from the pipeline at a controlled rate through the liquid recovery facilities at the East Foreland Onshore Site. It should be noted that at this point, it was planned that one marine line would be in gas service maintaining a constant flow of casinghead gas to the East. Side delivery points. The second marine line flow controller governs the rate of liquid removal consistent with l~quid levels in the condensate receiver. Free gas is separated~in t~he receiver and put in the 16" East Side onshore pipeline for delivery. Condensate from the receiver then flows through two stage flash stabilization equipment. Gas evolving from the stabilization process is recovered and put into the 10" low pressur.e pipeline for use in the Collier Carbon ahd Chemical Plant fuel system. Any remaining condensate is collected in a con- densate storage tank. These facilities were designed to flash ~_. stabilize condensate from the system at maximum daily rates in excess of 1,500 BPD. In actual practice, it has been demonstrated that the equipment performs slightly in excess of rated designed parameters. During the past winter months, the Liquid Extraction Plant has been operating as indicat'ed by Mr. Roberts, and liquids have been condensing in the system at rates estimated to'be in excess of -2- 1,O00 B/D. Operational problems, due primarily to the relatively large pipeline diameter in relationship to the casinghead gas through- put, have resulted in difficulties in pipeline pigging operations necessary to remove accumulated condensate liquids. Due to the combined effects or relatively low velocity and the fact that gas is used to displace pipeline pigs, considerable bypassing occurs during the pigging operation resulting in inefficient liquid displacement. Mr. Roberts has explained the nature of the retrograde phenomena occurring in the pipeline system. Liquid has ,. sing throughout the pipeline system as a result of the of the plant residue gas. condensation been conden- physical nature The condensed both pipelin~es rate through'a presently hamper East Foreland. volume arrive at put rate. hour day is arrives in at rates of 75,000 facilities liquids arrive at the as a 'result of slug single line. It is operation of the The reason for this is, a velocity equivalent to East flow these liquid In otherwords, while the total estimated to be slightly in excess both pipelines in slugs which would B/D to maintain continuous Foreland facility in rather than at a controlled condensate slugs which handling facilities at individual slugs' of varying a 7'5,000 B/D liquid through- condensation for a 24- of 1,000 "Db~ls., it have to be handled gas delivery. These were not constructed for this condition. It shouldbe noted that had the exceedingly -3- large facility required to handle these liquid slugs been installed, the gas resulting from flash stabilizing liquids would have evolved at a rate in excess of 110,000 MCF/D. There is no facility or consumer capable of beneficially using a variable supply of high BTU gas peaking . ,, at the rate of llO,O00 MC[/~D for one hour or less. ^ccordingly, the facilities, as previously testified, were designed and installed to flash stabilize the pipeline condensate at a rate at which the flash gas could be utilized in the. Collier Carbon and Chemical Plant .for fuel in a recently modified plant system. The problem confronting the operators of the Cook Inlet Gas System at this time is, therefore, to modify operations in such a manner that condensable vapors arrive at the East Foreland Facility at a rate at which they may be flash stabilized and beneficially utilized. The emerg.ency proce~dure of flaring the 2.5 million CF/D of depropanizer overhead vapors resulted in our being able to utilize the balance.~of the casinghead gas volume of 32.5 million CFI'D in a continuous manner while working on the development of a sol uti on for handling the total stream.' As a first step toward solving the problem, we have, within the past two weeks, completed test modifications to the system at East Foreland. These changes have allowed us to elevate the pressure in the pipeline system. The pressur'e will be increased in steps in an attempt to find a point at which the condensable liquids remain in the vapor state, between the Trading Bay Production Facility and the East Foreland marine line terminus. At East Foreland the pressure is being reduced through a control ,Valve in an ai~tempt to condense liquids in a continuous manner, directly proportional -4- to the pipeline throughput, or, about 1,O00 B/~ for a throughput rate of 30 million CF/~. The results of these modifications have not been evaluated as of this date. This is due to the relatively short online time since establishing the new pressure base, and the fact that the gas composition has not been stabilized since returning the depropanizer overhead vapors to the gas stream. Therefore it is not known at this time whether or not the 2.5 million CF/D of propane rich vapors can be handled in a manner enabling us to flash stabilize the condensate for fuel Useage. Mr. Roberts will now discuss other steps being taken toward solving the problem. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF CONSERVATION ORDERS 119 AND 120 On February 22, 1973, the depropanizer overhead vapors were returned to the Cook Inlet gas system flow.stream as testified in the public hearing of February 23, 1973. Operating pressures at the West Foreland Plant were in- creased to 1300 psig. This proCedure was an attempt to evaluate the concept of Increased pressure base operations for the purpose of maintaining conden- · sable liquids in the vapor phase in the Cook Inlet gas system between the West Foreland Plant and the East Foreland onshore facility. Operations were.essentially normal or as' anticipated with no significant increase in pressure drop across the Cook Inlet In the duai maril~e pipel ines until the morning of February 28, when line number 2 began intermittent slug flow of condensable liquids. The flash vapors from these condensed liquids ranged between 3 and 4 million feet per day during the day, dropping:, In volume to between 1.5 and 3'MMMCF · during the early evening hours. , , , Operating pressures at this time were as follows: West Foreland discharge East Foreland dual marine pipeline pressure 1300 psi, t250 psi Condensate receiver pressure 1050 psi. . ', During this period, no liquid slug flow was observed in the"flow stream of · , ,. m,;,rine pipeline No. 1 Between February 28 and March 5, operat:ions were essentiall'y as described abc, ye with intermittent slug flow and, liquid production being observed in line No. 2, with llne No. i being essentially liquid free. Difficulties we,'e also being experienced in maintainl.ng control of the temporary pressure control valves installed at East Foreland as part of the high pressure operational p~ocedures. By March 5, these problems had been eliminated and a abnormal pressure drop between East Foreland and the KPL Junct'lon was observed in the ]6" East Side high pressure line. On the morning of March 5, an attempt was made to clear an apparent liquid buildup in the East Side high pressure lihe by launching a pig from East Foreland toward the KPL junction. ~'By mid-morning, a significant volume · of liquid had been expelled from the 16" onshore line through the KPL scrubber and into Union's 10" low pressure line. These liquids flow from the KPL scrubber through a ,liquid dump line to I~he lO" low pressure line and are flashed· to 190 lb. (the operating pressure of the low pressure system), with any remaining liquids being collected in a condensate storage tank located at the Collier Plant. The volume of condensate remaining following the flashing process from the KPL scrubber liquid dump line to the iow pressure line was in excess of the tank storage ·capacity and as a. result, the system was shut ino At this point~ the 16~' high pressure line pigging operation was ~ncomplete as the volume of condensate liquids exceeded the storage capacity of the condensate storage tank at Col lier~ the scrubbers and pipeline in the low pressure system were filled to capacity and shut in, the KPL scrubber was filled to capacity and was shut in, and a pig and unknown volume of liquid remained In the i6'~ high pressure llne between East Foreland and the KPL Junction. Because of the lack of flow in the 16'~ high pressure line, the dual marine pipelines had automatically.shut in, the dual marine pipelines and the West Side 16~' high pressure pipeline pressure had increased to 1350 psi, and the 16" West Side pipel ine was shut in. '2- This condition resulted in the decision to remove the overhead vapors from the gas stream to allow purging of accumulated condensable liquids follow- ing the re-establishment of normal operations. By 6:00 p.m. of March 5, operation of the Cook Inlet gas system had resumed, l lquld~ had been moved from the low pressure system, and the West Foreland Plant was again onstream. At this point, the. depropanJzer overhead vapors were being flared and have been flared since 6:00 p.m. on March 5, with the exception of short time periods when they have. been returned to the system, for plant perfor- mance anal'ysis. From that time through March 22,' a total of 30,429 MCF of depropanizer has been flared. We are continuing to investigate the various met'hods of solving the liquid problem as testified to in the February 23 Hearing. To reiterate, the pos- sible solutions are basically two: 1. Eliminate or minimize liquid drop out. 2. Improve. methods of handling Ilquid drop out. .:. In order to investigate properly 'the various methods of reducing liquid drop out, it would be highly desirable to have a re1 iable set ot~ vapor-1 iquid equilibrium valves. Dew points and..the amount of condensation could then · be calculated at varying pressur~ and composition. It is difficult, at ,e best, to use the entire pipeline system as a laboratory to test the effect of various changes. With that goal in mind, we have made numerous dew point determinations with the Bureau of Mines test equipment at varying pressure and composition to determine whether the system is best fitted by the Chaa-Seader or Grayson-Streed correlation. Unfortunately, the'date indi- cates that it fits neither. However, both measured and theoretical data show the point of maximum dew point is at 1000 psig; indicating that an Increase i'n plpeline operating pressure would'be beneficial. / The determination of hydrocarbon dew points with the Bureau of Hines tester is subject to some error. Further, we observed what appeared to be con- siderable variation in dew point from operational changes. Because of the possibility of field errol~ we have collected dupli~ to Core Laboratories for determination of dew point at varying pressure and liquid-vapor ratio at 1200 psig and 25° F. Core Lab has said that such de- terminations are quite time consuming and will require six to eight 'weeks. We will, of course, attempt' to accelerate the testing. As mentioned previously, both theoretical calculations and measured dew point data.show that liquid dropout would be decreased by increasing line pressure. We doubt that the test during late?February and early March was a good indi- cation of the effect of pressure. The lines had not been pigged prior to the test and considerable liquid undoubtedly remained in the line. We plan to pig the lines thoroughly as soon as the necessary line checks and equip- ment changes have been made and then to operate the line at some 1400 to' 1450 psig. The lines will then be pigged on a regular basis so as to give at least a rough idea of the amount of liquid dropout. We have considered two methods of ut.ilizing the depr6panizer overhead as burner fuel. The overhead could 'be used dlrectly as fuel but this wou]d re- quire a change in burner orifices on ali heaters. Since the same fuel must be supplied to all heaters, al1 orifices would have to be changed at the same time, which would require a complete shut down of the entire T~ading Bay Pro- duction Facilities. Further, propane storage and vaporization equipment would have to be installed.to supply rich gas to the burners when the LEX ', unlt ls out of servlce. -4- A more logical method of utilizing depropanizer overhead as fuel would be to install a system to mix air with the overhead to obtain a mixture having approximately the same burning characteristics as the present fuel. We are now ~e~l~ln~l wltM the I~Mem-$a"s Company to determine if such a system can be made to be both s~ife and reliable. We hope to have the study completed within three to four weeks. We have investigated the use of gas well gas to supplement or partially re- place compressed lift gas on the Dolly Varden platform. The study shows that some 4 to 5 MMCFD of gas well gas can be introduced into the fas lift system without over loading existing equipment. As indicated earlier, this would have two useful effects: (1) The turbo eXpander throughput would be increased which would increase expander efficiency, thus increasing butane removal from the residue gas; (2) the lean gas well gas would dilute the residue gas. We plan to make a trial run on this procedure within the next two weeks. ' The Fluor Corporation has designed a new system of turbo-expander control instrumentation which they feel will enable the unit to recover from upsets · . . more rapidly. During the recent.series of dew point determinations, we saw evidence that the dew point may increase some 20 to 30° during turbo expander upsets. Within the next few days we should receive the details on Fluor's proposed changes. If the system is acceptable, we expect to make the instru- mentation change within the next two to three weeks. We have not yet deter- mined whether the change will require a plant shutdown. Fluor h~s also been working with Rotoflow, the manufacturer of t. he turbo expander, on determining the optimum design of the compressor and expander wheels for maximum efficiency at present and near future throughputs and whether operation can be improved by recycling residue gas. Final selection on design may take one to two months, Equipment delivery and installation could require a month to six weeks. The liquid detecting and diverting system at Granite Point has been inspected. The d/p cell, which detects the passage of liquid, was found to be in work- ing condition; however, the pneumatic relay that receives the d/p cell signal and actuates the diverting valves was found to be inoperable. Attempts to · repair it were unsuccessful and a new relay has been ordered' Delivery may require two weeks or so. :' The liquid handling capabilities of the East Side low pressure and high pres- sure system have been improved bY installing modified control equipment in order to handle higher volumes of condensable liquids. To date, all neces- sary controls have been installed or ordered, with the longest delivery items being high level alarm switches presently scheduled for delivery on April 6, ,. and installation 'by April 15, 1973. Contingent on material delivery and installation, it is planned to clear the Cook Inlet gas system pipelines of ai.~ condensable liquids and increase, the operating pressure to between 1400 psi and 1450 psi. on April 15, 19~3, and conduct the field trial as described ~ , · above. -6- and Gas( '~ion:Western Region Union Oil Union Oil Company of California 909 W. 9th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone' (907) 279-7681 February 8, 1973 · State of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 CONSERVATION ORDER 103 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT Gentlemen: Pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations and applicable statutes of the State of Alaska, Union Oil' Company of California, on behalf of itself and Marathon Oil Company, requests Rule 2 of the subject order as amended be further amended to read as follows: "Effective no later than 7:00 A.M., A.S.T., November 1, 1972, the flaring or v~"~i.~ng of casinghead gas from the Trading Bay Field is prohibited, except for the amount necessary for adequate safety flares and except as may be authorized by the Committee in cases of emergency or ope.rational necessity." Union and Marathon 'Oil Company independently constructed a 52 mile pipe- line system to transport excess casinghead gas from the subject field to the Nikiski area on the East Side' of Cook Inlet. A highly complex hydrocarbon phase relationship exists in this casinghead gas. Research scientists have devised different methods of calcUlati.ng the behavior of this type of gas. Design calculations or. iginally used indicated gas in this system would remain gaseous. Actual operati.ng experience, however, has shown hydrocarbon liquids condense in the pipeline system and settle in the low portions of the pipeline which effectively shuts off gas flow. When this occurs, pipeline pressures build up until the gas is relieved through safety valves at the West Foreland Plant. To eliminate the source of these liquids thereby allowing continous gas flow in the system, a relatively small portion of the total volume must be flared at the West Foreland liquid extraction facility. This process has dried out the system and has allowed an uninterrupted flow of the remainder of the gas to Nikiski. Alternatives to this procedure are now being investigated. Due to the complexities involved, it is conceivable that more than one alternative will be implemented before the most effective solution to the problem is derived. In this event, itma¥, be operationally necessary to periodically flare gas in excess of the amount normally Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Conservation Order 103 -2- February 8, 1973 necessary for adequate safety flares. The requested amendment will allow this process. It is respectfully requested that a hearing on this matter be called for February 23, 1973. It is further requested in accordance with Section 2012 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations that a 15 day emergency order be issued for the flaring of gas at the West Foreland production facility servicing the McArthur River and Trading Bay Fields in excess of the amount necessary for an adequate safety flare. Very truly yours, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF ALASKA, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, ) ss. ~ary L Shake being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that.she ....... is the....L...e.g~....C.-]:.e.?.k.. ..... of the Anchorage News, a daily news- paper. That said newspaper has been approved as a legal news- paper by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said news- paper. That the annexed is a true copy of a .... '.L..e~.~,l..~..o.[~..~.~...~'194 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemet~tal form) of said newspaper for. a periOd of ..... .o.b.e. ....... insertions, commencing on the ....1.~ ..... day of ...Fe.h~.ua~.~ .....,19 ...~.3, and ending on the ...... ~3. ........ day of of ...i."..e..b..r..u...a..r..Y. ........... , 19......7..3, both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers dur- ing all of sa.id period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 20,50 which amount has been paid in full at the rate of 25¢ per line; Mini- mum cJ~arge $7.50. , / , /' /, ,/' ?;' ,,,,~ ,," ,,,, Subscribed a,~ sworn fo before /_/ me this ..1..~.i- day or' .................... ]?ebruary, Notary Public in and the State c~ Alaska, Third Division, Anchorage, Alaska MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ...... ......... ././.., NOTIOE OF PUBLIC l j~EARjNG STATE OF ALASKA ,. DBPARTMENT .OF NATURAL R~SOU'RIGES DIVISION OF .OIL A~NO GAS . Alaska Oil anc~ Gas 'Conservation . Co, mmittee 3001 'Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ~' Oonservation FHe No. 119 Re: '~he . application of i Union Oil .'i.C0mpany of' California for an amendment to Rule NO. 2 of Con- .servafi0n Order No..;103 'to .au- thorize th~ 0il and 'Gas: Con, er- 'ration Committee to' authorize f ari.ng or.. vedting of:.;.casinghead JJ gas from :the Tr'a.cli'n~.':Ba'y Field JJ i,n cases Of 'emergenCy Or oper-jj etlon.al ne:ess'itY. ':i,'~[::''. ' JJ OH. '~°mpa'n~. of" Califo'rni~'i'°n behalf · ~f .ifSel.~' ~n.d-" 'Ma~ath.on" O~il". ComPa.ny ,r~ts that ,Rule Ne."!,':2' .' ~ th~, Subject: order ",bej ' arm:~n'd~'!'' to,' r~adl ',as,' f, el',OWs~ .,, ' ,' 4!' ,. ',' '. i · !i" 'the in' '~ses of ' or Opl~retional neces- .. · to ~tl~g.'.,:aor~dens,,fiOn of, I~ydr°.a~bon gas,~a':',,l~l th6 newly, constructed': gas pipelln~.' which carries,, oasi;n,gh, ead gas f~m the West' Foreland pl.a:nt to ithe' 'N~J:sEi .':a.rea .:l~as" caused p.ressu~e !i.r~orea.~:es;, ~hiOh 'must ~'e relieved 'tE~°ugh:.: :.:.Sa,f crY 'vaiVes~, 'af'~ th e 'west :F~elen'a~ li~id e~f~a,eti~n?'l~aOi'li*tY, , , ,,,~,,., t.~ ~ ~:gaS. fl~ ~ relatively a~ emergeac~':.' order 11:~af~' Febr. ua,r.y i.an.l:l, a,ffecteci ,:a,n,cl, interested parties Will..be..':heaiid '..: ::. · Thomas R. 6Aa;rs.h~al~l::, J~r. I ExeCutiVe Secret. a,r¥' ' bii',h,Februa.r.y'. 1~7,3 · .a.i Notice~ N'o.' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Conservation File No. 119 Re: The application of Union Oil Company of California for an amendment to Rule No. 2 of Conservation Order No. 103 to authorize the Oil and Gas Conservation Committee to authorize flaring or venting of casinghead gas from the Trading Bay Field in cases of emergency or operational necessity. Notice is hereby given that Union Oil Company of California on behalf of itself and Marathon 011 Company requests that Rule No. 2 of the subject order be amended to read as follows: "Effective no later than' 7:00 A.M., A.S.T., November I, 1972, the flaring or venting of casinghead gas from the Trading Bay Field is prohibited, except for the amount necessary for adequate safety flares and except as may be authorized by the Committee in cases of emergency or operational necessity." Unforseen operating conditions due to the condensation of hydro- carbon gases in the newly constructed gas pipeline which carries casing- head gas from the West Foreland plant to the Ni'kiski area has caused pressure increases which must be relieved through safety valves at the West Fore land liquid extraction facility. To eliminate the source of these liquids thereby al lowing continuous gas flow in the system, a relatively small portion of the total volume is being flared at West Foreland under an emergency order dated February 9, 1973. Alternatives to this procedure are actively being investigated. The hearing will be held at 9:30 A.M., February 23, 1973 in Room I01 of the Community Center Building, 607 West 6th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, at which time the operator and affected and interested parties will be heard. Thomas R. Marshall, Jr. Executive Secretary Publish: February 13, 1973