New Page 0

A Better "Mousetrap"
Gas coming out of a well contains water and must first be dried or "dehydrated" before it can be sent to market. The dehydrating facility at each well site includes burners involved in that process and those burners are unregulated emitters of combustion gases.
While researching issues associated with dehydrator burners as part of a plan to seek small business funding to develop a better technology, I discovered Engineered Concepts, LLC. This small firm had already developed the better dehydrator technology I was seeking. Rather than
"reinvent the wheel," I contacted the company president and offered to facilitate an introduc-tion of his technology to operators in Sublette County.
   The result has been a two year effort involving the facilitation of an initial meeting between his company and the largest operator conducting operations here. That resulted in placement of two test units of what is called the "Quantum Leap Dehydrator" (QLD) in the field for a year which have functioned with high reliability. Frustratingly, however, there has been a need to also facilitate cooperation by State regulators and that has been more problematic.

With Friends Like This...
   As of Dec. 2006, the fielding of the Quantum Leap Dehydrator is about nine months behind the hoped-for schedule because one regulatory "analyst" has held up progress because of the belief that the new approach is no better for overall reduction of emissions, NOx in particular, than the old method that relies on combustor stacks. Apparently, added field testing of the QLD is seen as preferable over acceptance of the EPA findings (go to table at bottom of this page). Thus, a battery of field evaluations are to be undertaken by the operator in question in Jan. 2007 as an effort to satisfy the State regulator. As for the EPA test, the information box below presents key findings and comparisons regarding the QLD.
   For detailed explanations of the technology and EPA's test process, go to the table at the bottom of this page.
   There is an additional flaw in the "analyst's" logic and it is typical of State regulators. Namely, that person totally disregards the fact that combustors currently being used to eliminate VOC's emit copious amounts of combustion products of the same types and in higher volumes than glycol dehydrators(click Spectrometry-page 2)....the global warming gas CO₂ being one. However, the objections offered are that federal law only addresses NOx, so all other emissions are irrelevant.
   Lastly, they invoke the red herring argument that economic issues associated with the savings in gas by the QLD are of no concern to them (even though more gas to market translates into more tax revenue for the State).
   There are added plans to field two more test units modified to capture and distill vapors from the well head condensate and produced water storage tanks, also for inclusion in the market gas stream. This modification offers great potential for reduction of overall well emissions by an overall 1000%.
                        Perry Walker

Old Dehy Technology

Basically WW II vintage
EPA estimates in 1996 put dehy units in U.S. at >38,000
These release 18.6 Billion cf/year of methane = 393,000 tons
As a greenhouse gas, methane is 21 times more effective than CO₂
Based on operator input in 2004, BLM anticipated 3100 dehy units on the Jonah infill…this is now unlikely with multi-well pads but 1000 are still possible. However, multiwell dehy’s are larger and produce larger quantities of emissions.

Quantum Leap Dehy

EPA evaluation declared that the QLD in a field test:

Eliminates all VOC’s
Eliminates 99.74% of all HAP’s (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane)
Eliminates almost all toxic and explosive emissions and is thus safer
Eliminates the Kimray pump which removes low operating pressures as an operating condition barrier

Utilizes electricity as a motive power which can be provided by integral motor generator rated for 40,000 hour continuous operation (EnCana unit uses an 3-cyl engine driven hydraulic drive)
Reduces glycol reboiler fuel gas expense by 70% which can go to market

The EPA two years ago conducted a week long test in Colorado of the QLD and found it to be all
that is claimed by the inventor

    The EPA,s Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) issued a
    verification statement on QLT certifying that performance testing showed that
    for a 26-29MMscfd flow rate, the QLD saved 35MMscf/yr equivalent worth
    $173,000.

    Emissions were:
            NOx…………. 715 lbs/yr
            CO…………… 4.36 lbs/yr
            CO2…………. 486 tons/yr
            VOC,s………. 2.6 lbs/yr
            HAP,s………. destruction efficiency = 99.74% = +/- .01%

COMPARE: well permit application declarations for one well production pad supporting 7 wells of
record in the Mesa Unit.

            Production Rate: 33.6 MMscfd    (1.2x higher than the EPA test condition on QLD)
            Note: Numbers below are pounds per year and tons per year in parentheses; QLD rates are a
                    linear extrapolation of 1.2 times the EPA test condition and also include capture of tank
                    emissions
                                                                  Old Dehy & Tanks

                         Uncontrolled             Controlled                    QLD               QLD vs Controlled
            NOx:       5,000 (2.5)            12,800 (6.4)             858.0 (0.43)           15x reduction
            CO:      1,600 (0.8)             3,600 (1.8)             5.2 (0.0026)           690x reduction
            CO2:       Not Declared           1.16 million (583)     unknown result
            VOC’s:    1.2 million (605)      58,400 (29.2)           3.1 (0.0016)          19,000x reduction
            HAP’s:     271,600 (135.8)      15,200 (7.6)             706.0 (0.35)          22x reduction

Joint Verification Statement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program regarding an EPA test of the Quantum Leap Dehydrator. (click)

Engineered Concepts, LLC brochure
describing its Quantum Leap De-
hydrator
                       (click)
Engineered Concepts, LLC brochure
describing its reheater-applicable
firetube design (click)

Reprint of July 26, 2004 issue of Oil & Gas Journal describing Engineered Concepts, LLC's Quantum Leap Dehydrator. (click)