Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Engineering Design 100 – Section 020
Pennsylvania State University
Group 5: Pump it up
Chevron Fracking Project- Water
Treatment Mobile Truck Trailer System
Project Engineers: Paula Espinoza [email protected] Rob Saracino [email protected] Max Histch [email protected] Bo Hui [email protected] Submitted to: Dr. Smita Bharti: 12/12/2016
pg. 1
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary………………………………………………………..2
2. Introduction and Problem Statement……………………………………....3
3. Definition of Sustainability………………………………………………..4
4. Background………………………………………………………………..4
5. Customer needs…………………………………………………………....5
6. Concept generation………………………………………………………. 6
7. Concept development and selection……………………………………....7
8. Final design…………………………………………………………….....8
- Prototype………………………………………………….……..10
- Cost Analysis …………………………………………………....11
- Regulatory considerations…………………………………….…12
- Public opinion……………………………………………….…...13
9. Conclusion………………………………………………………………..15
10. References………………………………………………………………..16
pg. 2
Executive Summary
The present report provides an analysis that covers an alternative plan for Chevron to clean the
brine water produced in the fracking process. The team designed a Mobile Truck Trailer Filtration System
which carries out the filtration of the water as well as its transportation. The design consisted on five trailer
tanks: the first four, conducting a different filtration process, and the last one, serving for storage and later
transportation. The calculated plausible cost of the project depicts the extensive work needed to achieve a
completely pure and clean water, which involves filtration devices, trucks, management, and reparations.
Along these lines, the team built a model that has the power to provide clean water for three purposes: reuse
it for further fracking processes, make drinkable water, and release it into local bodies of water for common
human use.
pg. 3
Introduction and Problem Statement
Pump It Up Industries envisions the future of fracking water to be reused and recycled, eliminating
the need for immediate disposal. In order to reach this goal, we will investigate different ways to create a
network of marketable possibilities including industrial application, general municipal use, and even
drinkable water.
Currently, 70% of the water is reused. However, the remaining 30% is disposed of with toxic
concentrations. One disposal route is injection into deep wells, and a good deal of flow back is transported
to be injected deep underground. But this method has its own problems — the injection process has the
inconvenient habit of causing an earthquake every now and again. Another alternative is waste treatment:
removing the contaminants and then dumping the “clean” water into a nearby sewer or river. But you can’t
use a standard municipal water treatment plant to treat flow back and produced water as those facilities are
just not designed to handle the level of contamination, especially radioactivity, found in these waters.
An ideal scenario would be to convert 100% of the water used in the process of fracking into
reusable and consumable water. In addition to the water, solid constituents will be filtered and distributed
to help account for a near 0% Brine water waste output. Pump It Up Industries will minimize the
environmental damage fracking causes, and help the world get closer to a sustainable way of life.
pg. 4
Definition of Sustainability
In general, sustainability is the ability to maintain a system at a certain rate or output level. During the
process of designing the system, the group took into consideration the sustainability factor in order to make
it plausible in the eyes of chevron.
Background
Chevron Corporation is an American multinational energy corporation. One of the successor
companies of Standard Oil, it is headquartered in San Ramon, California, and active in more than 180
countries. Chevron is engaged in every aspect of the oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy industries,
including hydrocarbon exploration and production; refining, marketing and transport; chemicals
manufacturing and sales; and power generation. The corporation is also popular because its engagement in
the process of fracking. [1]
Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of injecting fracking liquid at a high
pressure into subterranean rocks, to retrieve and extract natural gas and oil. As a result of this process, brine
water is released. This substance is the naturally occurring salty water that comes out from the underground.
This energy intensive process can become very harmful to the environment, resulting in the risk of ground
and surface water pollution, air pollution, and the triggering of earthquakes. Thus, fracking has become a
very controversial topic in today's society. However, it is because the process is misunderstood by the
public. “Environmentalists storm capitals over it, demanding increased regulations, and oil and gas
company employees and officials scratch their heads — they’ve been using the same process in oil and gas
drilling for 60 years without widespread incidents” [2]
After a well starts producing gas, there is the need to haul the produced brine water off site.
Currently, Chevron produces at a rate of forty barrels per day (per well) with a concentration of 40,000 ppm
of total dissolved solids. And the company hauls the water off site to be treated or injected into approved
disposal wells. Therefore, Chevron encouraged all Engineering Design 100 students from Penn State
University to elaborate an idea to properly treat the water on-site to produce marketable by-products. [3]
pg. 5
Customer Needs
Before the design of the different concepts, certain target specifications were established, in order
to achieve the satisfaction of the customer. Considering the customers as the Chevron Industry, the
community nearby the fracking zone, and the government. Some of the needs the presented were obtained
through chevron’s specifications, environmental laws, and common sense from the team members. The
specifications for the project are:
Table 1. Customer needs and target specifications
Sustainable The process and solution must be fundable
Marketable use for
brine water
· Reuse for fracking
· Bottled water
· General human water needs
Marketable use for
brine
· Calcium chloride and other salts can be distributed for industrial
use, such as maintain roadways in winter months across America.
· Rock formations can be distributed to quarries who can sell it
for further industrial use (road construction, landscaping…etc.).
EPA compliance “clean water act”: the quality and pollution statistics must in
compliance with the Law
Stakeholders · Chevron: Need to have a sufficient return on investment to keep
them happy.
· EPA: Need to comply with the law and basic moral decisions
· State Gov. and local pollutions
· The local people
pg. 6
Concept Generation
Table 2. Classification tree
Different ideas regarding concepts and designs to elaborate a water filtration system were
provided by each member of the team in order to hold a variety of options, evaluate and analyze each of
them, and finally make a decision. The team came up with five different designs: a large stationary plant,
multiple stationary plants, an innovative pipe filtration system, a water filtration by freezing process, and
a mobile truck trailer filtration. Each of the concepts took into account the customer needs, regulations,
and the brainstorming from the classification tree.
pg. 7
Concept Selection
A concept scoring matrix was conducted to evaluate and consider the best option of design,
considering a list of criteria. Some of them, with a higher weight than others, depending on its relevancy to
the team’s main objective. For example, the most important and valued criteria for the project was how
well the system filtered the water, as seen by the 25% of the total weight in Table 3 below. The criteria for
which the team established the least emphasis on was the overall cost. Although the cost was important to
consider in order to make the project plausible, the team did not want to let it restrict the options when
designing the system and is therefore why it was assigned the lowest weighted value.
Table 3. Concept Scoring. The data below shows the weight and rating of each concept design, based on
each criteria.
After the completion of the concept scoring, the results were totaled and the Design Five, the Mobile
Truck Trailer Filtration, resulted to be the best option for the achievement of the objective.
pg. 8
Final Design
After conducting all the previous research depicted above, the final design implements a five tank
mobile filtration system. The system is comprised of 5 trailer sized filtration tanks that can store a total of
30,000 gallons each. The first 4 tanks are assigned a specific step in the filtration processes, with the 5th
and final tank storing the filtered water. All tanks, as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3 are designed to function
as the back of a typical eighteen-wheel transport vehicle. This allows the filtration system to be moved from
one fracking site to another with minimal effort.
Figure 2. 3D Sketch of the final design. Perspective 1.
Figure 3. 3D Sketch of the final design. Perspective 2.
pg. 9
Figure 4. System Diagram.
Each step on the systems diagram was depicted as the different filtrations phases the water goes through
after pumped directly from the on sight fracking pad. These steps are as follow:
1. The coarse filter: activated carbon can to absorb those particulate matters including sediment, rust,
algae, suspended solids, micro fibers and other particulate impurities, visible to the naked eye. And
there is a pressure sensor on the bottom of the tank. Once the weight of the substances reaches the
certain level, the iron gauze network with substance will move upward from the bottom to collect
those to another container.
2. A sedimentation tank: further remove those visible substances follow closely by the coarse filter.
And the pressure sensor and the iron gauze network work as those in coarse filter system.
3. A fine filter: includes a process of chemical reactions as follows. Lime is added to the brine, making
lime calcium hydroxide and magnesium ions in the brine (Mg2 +) reaction of magnesium
hydroxide. The Brine removes magnesium ions (Mg2 +), an excess of calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)
2) in the brine sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), into harsh sodium hydroxide (NaOH); the second step is
the removal of magnesium ions (Mg2 + brine) after they pass into the flue gas. The flue gas being
carbon dioxide (CO2). Brine caustic sodium hydroxide and generation after sodium carbonate brine
reacted with the calcium ions (Ca2 +) produce calcium carbonate (CaCO3) precipitate, removing
bittern contains calcium ions (Ca2 +); The third step of the first step is to collect slurry produced
in the second step; a fourth step of recovering the first step and the second step of the processing
After refining brine. [4]
4. Chlorine added: the last step of disinfection for cleaning the bacterial and microbes and the chloride
react with water generate the acid(HClO3) that is extremely broken down.
pg. 10
5. Storage tank: there is a water quality monitor inside each tank. If the water quality is qualified, then
the water can be provided for local citizens.
Prototype
After selecting the preeminent concept, the team was required to build a prototype that could
physically represent the ideas.
The model effectively depicts each step developed in the system diagram and the final design,
including all of the phases of the filtration system for which the water has to go through. The prototype was
built basing on the criteria utilized in the Concept Scoring Matrix. However, evidently, some of the criteria
taken into consideration could not be explicitly represented, such as the effectiveness, the overall cost, the
compliance with EPA.
Figure 1. The prototype
pg. 11
Cost Analysis
Table1. The Table below represents the cost analysis of the entire project, divided into different aspects
and considerations
Project
Area
Common Industry Practice
Description Cost
Coarse
Filter
In order to clean the
visual substances and
the smell and colorful
gases
Assume $100,000~200,000
Includes the use of materials (Stainless Steel)to
make the tank, the activated carbon iron gauze network
,and the electricity
Sediment
Tank
Condense those soluble
substances and settle
those insoluble
substances
Assume $50,000~100,000
Includes the use of the materials (Stainless Steel) to
make the tank, iron gauze network and electricity.
And the transportation fee to move the precipitation to
industries
Fine
Filter
Generate the
precipitation then
transport it to industry
Assume $200,000~300,000
Includes the use of materials (Stainless Steel) to make
the tank, the chemicals (Lime and Carbon Dioxide) used
to clean those harmful substances in the brine water,
electricity, iron gauze network, regularly cleaning fee
and the transportation fee.
Chlorine
added
To clean the
Bacterial and
microbes
Assume $100,000~200,000
Includes the use of the materials (Stainless Steel) to
make the tank and the chlorine
Storage
Tank
To storage the clean
water
Assume $50,000~200,000
Includes the use of the materials (Stainless Steel) to make
the tank, Water quality monitor and transportation fee.
Although the process appears to be highly expensive, it illustrates the importance and the work needed
achieve a completely pure and clean water, which involves filtration devices, trucks, management, and
reparations.
pg. 12
Regulatory Considerations
The environmental, public, political and federal regulations are paramount for the development of
every project. These projects should meet the regulations in order to achieve the objective without hurting
the environment, the community and each individual.
With the oil and gas industry’s use of hydraulic process (fracking), concerns over the environmental
impact of these operations have increased. Thus, state regulations were established. State regulations related
to these operations typically focus on site design, drilling procedures, well design and specifications,
regulatory oversight/monitoring, and handling of materials and wastes.
Ongoing groundwater or surface water testing is generally not required by regulation. On a case-
by-case basis permits can be written to require ongoing monitoring, but regulatory monitoring
activities focus on operational controls rather than monitoring environmental impact.
If surface water discharges or reuse of flowback are allowed, they are regulated under NPDES.
Treatment is typically performed by wastewater treatment facilities.
The regulations for the state of Pennsylvania regarding the ongoing groundwater, surface water and the
water reuse are the following:
For the groundwater and surface water, there are no additional testing regulations specific to shale/fracking
operations. And for the liquid waste and fracking fluids, the waste handling plan associated with the permit
must describe handling procedures. Wastewater Analysis required by PADEP Form 26R includes:
Acidity, Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3), Specific Conductance, pH, Hardness (Total as CaCO3)
Metals: Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Calcium, Chromium,
Cobalt, Copper, Iron – Dissolved & Total, Lead, Lithium, Magnesium, Manganese, Mercury,
Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Thorium, Uranium, Zinc
Ammonia Nitrogen
Benzene, Toluene
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand
Bromide, Chloride, Sulfate
Ethylene Glycol
pg. 13
Gross Alpha, Gross Beta
MBAS (Surfactants)
Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen, and TKN
Oil & Grease
Phenolics (Total)
Radium 226, Radium 228
Total Dissolved Solids, Total Suspended Solids [5]
Thoughts On Public Opinion
Based on a recent poll taken in 2016, 51% of the of the United States answered in opposition to
fracking as a means to maintain our current energy demands. This near perfect split in the public’s opinion
on fracking brings to light just how divided our nation is on this issue. While each side produces sound
arguments and provide equally important evidence, it is important cater to both viewpoints when designing
an alternative system involved in the fracking industry.
To cater to those in favor of fracking, as means to maintain our energy demands, is relatively
simple. The solution being to frack, and frack efficiently. Those in favor of fracking understand the
necessity to supply the country with the basic amounts of energy in order to function. They also understand
the consequences of fracking, however consider in their view that meeting our nation's energy demands are
worth these consequences.
Those opposed to fracking, hold the opinion that the pros do not outweigh the cons. Because there
are quite a few cons, this valid argument must also be considered when developing new technology used in
the fracking industry. One problem that we as designers focused on in trying to improve, was that of water
use and water contamination. According to “Climate Connections” an analysis posted by Yale University,
more than 15 million Americans have had a fracking operation within a mile of their home. Still, that means
that a small proportion of people shoulder the burden and downsides, with no real compensation for this
intrusive new industrial presence. The solution proposed is to try to minimize the industrial presence and
the impact fracking has on local communities. Many key design features the team came up with in the water
treatment process focus on reducing these industrial impacts in order to cater to this side of the argument.
pg. 14
With that said, the final design is expected and created to be accepted and environmentally friendly,
since it prevents the waste of the brine water. It provides diverse uses of this substance, such as reuse it for
fracking, filtering to obtain drinkable water and release it into local bodies of water. Moreover, it uses the
gravity force as the source of energy to pump the water into the different tanks, making it more sustainable.
In conclusion, public opinion is very important when designing new methods for fracking, specifically the
treatment of water contamination. As an engineer, public opinion has a profound influence on the design
specifications and process. [6]
pg. 15
Conclusion
Chevron partnered with Penn State to enhance learning and its application in the real world.
This project emphasized prevalent problems associated with fracking, as well as current methods
to reduce its negative impact on the environment. Tasked with 4 different problems, this report
focused on the excess brine water and its filtration method. This project teaches the importance of
communication, as well as the following the engineering process that is responsible for the world
around.
pg. 16
References
1. Hydrauling Fracturing. Hydraulicfracturing,com. Unlocking America’s Natural Gas Resources.
Retrieved from:
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAsrnCBRCTs7nqwrm6pcYBEiQAcQSznP
_Oh6e9UIYw5lI2mNJ4kFNOHqPYzCB7Pf71ULRxMlcaAhMR8P8HAQ#/?section=jobs-and-
the-economy
2. Dunn, S (October 14, 2016). Fracking 101: Breaking down the most important part of today’s oil, gas
drilling. Greeleytribune.com. Retrieved from:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/fracking-101-breaking-down-the-most-important-part-
of-todays-oil-gas-drilling/
3. Chevron Corporation (2001-2006). Hydraulic fracturing. Chevron.com. Retrieved from:
https://www.chevron.com/operations/shale
4. Anmeldung (October 22, 2008). Technological process for purifying bittern. Google.com. Retrieved
from: https://www.google.ch/patents/CN101289200A?cl=en
5. ALS. State Fracking Regulations. Alsglobal.com. Retrieved from:
http://www.alsglobal.com/en/Our-Services/Life-Sciences/Environmental/Capabilities/North-
America-Capabilities/USA/Oil-and-Gasoline-Testing/Oil-and-Gas-Production-and-Midstream-
Support/Fracking-Regulations-by-State
6. Wihbey, J (May 27, 2015). Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Keys. Yaleclimateconnections.com. Retrieved
from: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/