You are on page 1of 74

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 495.

6
A DESIGN PROJECT
PREPARED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

PIG RECEIVER WAX EMULSIFIER


P-9
BY: Dvernichuk, Ragen N.
LaBine, L. Neil
Mah, Chester K.
Thursday January 30, 2003

Prof. S. Yannacopoulos
Matthew Crane
Faculty Advisors

This design report is written in partial fulfillment of the requirements in ME 495.6. The contents represent
the opinion of the authors and not the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
Abstract

The intent of this report is to recommend that a paraffin wax emulsification system

be implemented in a pig receiver barrel to reduce the labour and risk involved when

removing a cleaning pig from the receiver barrel. Paraffin wax is a naturally occurring

substance in crude oil. As temperature decreases paraffin particles solidify, creating

paraffin wax. In the industry of crude oil, the accumulation of paraffin wax is a common

problem, from oil wells to oilfield equipment to the production facilities, and the piping

that connects it all together. The paraffin wax problem in crude oil pipelines is addressed

in this report, specifically, the paraffin wax build- up problem in a pig receiver barrel.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. has the largest underground crude oil pipeline system. As

temperature of the crude oil in the pipeline begins to drop and the paraffin wax

precipitates from the oil, the paraffin wax migrates towards the inside surface of the

pipeline walls. If the paraffin wax is not removed it will build up and restrict the flow of

crude oil. A pig is a device used to scrape the inside walls of the pipeline. The scraper

pig is launched into the pipeline system to remove the paraffin wax from the inside

surface and push the paraffin wax build- up to the pig receiver station. A pig receiver

station is where the underground pipe network emerges above ground so that the scraper

pig may be removed. The pig and paraffin wax are manually removed from the receiver

barrel and the paraffin wax is sent away for processing.

The labour involved in removing the paraffin wax raises several concerns. The

first concern is safety. The crude oil contains a dangerous gas called hydrogen sulphide

(H2 S) which in high concentrations may result in respiratory arrest leading to coma or

unconsciousness and in some cases death. The operator is exposed to hydrogen sulphide

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier ii


each time a pig is removed from the receiver barrel. The second issue to address is

ergonomics. Manual removal of the paraffin wax and pig requires digging out the

paraffin wax and pig using a metal rod. The operation can be long and tedious for the

operator. The other aspect considered in the report is to minimize the amount of lost

product when the paraffin wax is removed from the receiver barrel. The discarded

paraffin wax is sent away and processed at a cost to Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

The objective of the report is to divulge the in depth study of the paraffin wax

problem in the receiver barrel and identify potential solutions. The design solution

proposal will resolve the issues of personnel exposure to hydrogen sulphide, related

manual labour, and processing fees. To achieve this, a method to emulsify the paraffin

wax in the receiver barrel is investigated such that minimal crude oil is lost. A safe

method of removing the pig is also necessary.

The use of a pig trap valve for the safe removal of the pig and a crude oil nozzle

injection system to emulsify the paraffin wax is proposed. Using the inertial energy of

the flow provided by the nozzles, the paraffin wax will be broken up into small pieces so

that it can continue to flow downstream. A proof of concept experiment was completed

and the results are discussed. The cost benefit to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. is detailed in a

complete economic assessment of the design, and recommendations of future work are

made.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier iii


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend our gratitude to those people who contributed time to
ensure our success with this project.

Faculty Supervisors

For all the guidance and extra time taken to help in the design process:
Professor Yannacopoulos Department of Mechanical Engineering (Head)
Matthew Crane - M.Sc. program: Unsteady bluff-body fluid dynamics

Industrial Contact

For the interesting design problem and time taken to answer countless questions and to
give helpful advice:
Matt Faith Enbridge (Saskatchewan) Pipelines Inc. (Facilities Engineer)
Barrie Ryan Enbridge (Saskatchewan) Pipelines Inc. (Area Supervisor)

College of Engineering Faculty and Staff

For all the expertise and knowledge to help with our design project and testing:
Doug Bitner: Fluid Controls Laboratory
Henry Berg & the Engineering Shop Staff: Engineering Central Shops
Dave Deutscher: Thermodynamics/Fluids Laboratory
Professor Rob Sumner: Department of Chemical Engineering
Professor A. Dalai: Department of Chemical Engineering
Professor R. Burton: Department of Mechanical Engineering
Professor B. Hertz: Department of Mechanical Engineering
Mark Tomten: Peter N. Nikiforuk ITLC

Industry Contacts

Rob Menzies: Meridian Supplies, Edmonton AB


Richard Smith: John Brooks Company, Winnipeg MB
Emily Kostiuk-Marchuk: Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies, Saskatoon SK
Steve Kranz: Chemical Safety Manager University of Saskatchewan
Waste Management Section: Department of Health, Safety and Environment
Martyn J Nundy: Apache Pipeline Products, Edmonton AB
Pearl Gagnon: B&E Electronics Saskatoon SK
Ken: Vican Pump, Windsor ON

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier iv


Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................iv

Table of Content s.................................................................................................................v

List of Illustrations.............................................................................................................vii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................viii

1.0 Background .................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1

1.2 Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc...................................................................2

1.3 Paraffin Wax............................................................................................................4

1.4 Pig Cleaning.............................................................................................................5

1.5 Paraffin Wax Problem in the Receiver Barrel .........................................................8

2.0 Design Objectives .....................................................................................................10

3.0 Design Alternatives ..................................................................................................11

3.1 Alternative l: Use of Solvents ................................................................................11

3.2 Alternative 2: Heat Trace and Insulate ..................................................................11

3.3 Alternative 3: Microwave transmission.................................................................12

3.4 Alternative 4: Ultrasonic Transducer.....................................................................13

3.5 Alternative 5: Alternative Pigging .........................................................................13

3.6 Alternative 6: Electro-magnetic field ....................................................................14

3.7 Alternative 7: Paraffin Wax Emulsification with Nozzles ....................................14

4.0 Selected Design Alternative .....................................................................................17

4.1 Overview of Operation ..........................................................................................17

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier v


5.0 Experimentation........................................................................................................19

5.1 Emulsification Experiment ....................................................................................19

5.2 Apparatus ...............................................................................................................19

5.3 Procedure ...............................................................................................................20

5.4 Experimental Results .............................................................................................22

6.0 Design Components ..................................................................................................23

6.1 Nozzles ..................................................................................................................23

6.1.1 Nozzle Selection...........................................................................................23

6.1.2 Nozzle Layout...............................................................................................24

6.2 Pump Automation..................................................................................................26

6.2.1 Pump and Piping Configuration ...................................................................26

6.2.2 Pig and Paraffin Wax Plug Signaller ............................................................28

6.2.3 Control System .............................................................................................29

6.3 Argus Pig Valve.....................................................................................................30

6.4 Back Pressure Valve ..............................................................................................32

7.0 Economic Assessment ..............................................................................................34

8.0 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................37

9.0 Recommendations for Future Work .........................................................................39

References..........................................................................................................................41

Appendices ........................................................................................................................43

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier vi


List of Illustrations

Figure 1: Scraper Pig ...........................................................................................................1

Figure 2: Pig Receiving Station...........................................................................................2

Figure 3: Map of Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Canadian Pipeline System ..................................3

Figure 4: Paraffin Wax Removal from Receiver Barrel......................................................4

Figure 5: Scraper Pig for 4 Pipe .........................................................................................6

Figure 6: Pig Receiving Station Schematic .........................................................................7

Figure 7: Alternate Design Proposal Schematic ................................................................15

Figure 8: Proposed Design Layout Schematic ...................................................................18

Figure 9: Testing apparatus schematic ..............................................................................19

Figure 10: Test Apparatus .................................................................................................21

Figure 11: VeeJet Spray Nozzle model H-U .....................................................................23

Figure 12: Section view of Nozzle ....................................................................................25

Figure 13: Motor and Vican AS-190 pump .......................................................................27

Figure 14: Apache Pig Signaller ........................................................................................28

Figure 15: Digital Control Station.....................................................................................30

Figure 16: Argus Pig Trap Valve Operation......................................................................31

Figure 17: Complete Schematic of Selected Design .........................................................33

Figure A1: Construction Drawing of Test Spool and End Caps ......................................A3

Figure A2: Construction Drawing of Nozzle Collar........................................................A3

Figure A3: Construction Drawing of 0.030 Slot Orifice Plate .......................................A4

Figure A4: Construction Drawing of Circular Orifice Plate ............................................A4

Figure A5: Construction Drawing of Testing Piece Jig Clamping Bracket ..................A5

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier vii


Figure A6: Construction Drawing of Test Piece Jig End Frame Member ....................A5

Figure A7: Construction Drawing of Test Piece Jig Long Frame Member ..................A6

Figure A8: Test Apparatus and Jig Assembly ..................................................................A6

Figure D1: Design Alternative Cost Comparison..............................................................19

List of Tables

Table 1: Cost Analysis of Alternatives ..............................................................................35

Table A1: Experimental Observations .............................................................................A2

Table B1: VeeJet Small Capacity Nozzle Data ................................................................ B3

Table B2: Vican Heavy Duty General Pump ................................................................... B6

Table D1: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System............................................D4

Table D2: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System with 6 Argus Valve ..........D5

Table D3: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System with 4 Argus Valve ...........D6

Table D4: Price List Sources ............................................................................................D7

Table D5: Cost Comparison of Design Solution Options ................................................D8

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier viii


1.0 Background

1.1 Introduction

Crude oil is a natural occurring hydrocarbon. It is highly flammable and can be

mixed with natural gas to create fuel, a valuable non-renewable product. Enbridge

Pipelines Inc. transports crude oil from point of supply to refining markets through an

underground pipe system. The difficulty of transporting crude oil is that paraffin wax

precipitates out of suspension with changes in temperature. The paraffin wax migrates to

the pipe walls and restricts the flow of the crude oil. A scraper pig is used by Enbridge

Pipelines Inc., to clean by removing paraffin wax from the inside surface of the pipeline.

The scraper pig used at the Enbridge Pipeline (Saskatchewan) Inc. Gapview Terminal

(shown in Figure 1) is a device that fits inside the pipeline to scrape the walls of the pipe.

The differential pressure across the friction fit pig drives it along the pipe.

Figure 1: Scraper Pig

A pig is both inserted and removed from the pipeline manually. Removing the pig

also includes removing the paraffin wax that the pig has scraped from the inside of the

pipeline. Removing the paraffin wax can be a time consuming and dangerous task. The

operator removing the paraffin wax is exposed to harmful gases in the paraffin wax, and

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 1


it can be very tedious to remove. Once the paraffin wax is removed from the pipeline

receiver barrel (Figure 2), it is sent away for processing at a cost to Enbridge Pipelines

Inc. For these reasons it is in the best interest of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. to find a more

effective method of removing the pig and paraffin wax from the pipeline. Enbridge

Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc. introduced this problem to the ME 495.3 Mechanical

Engineering Design group P-9 to develop a solution.

Figure 2: Pig Receiving Station

1.2 Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. operates the worlds largest crude oil and petroleum

products pipeline system. This report has been completed for Enbridge Pipelines

(Saskatchewan) Inc., a business segment of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. As seen in Figure 3,

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 2


Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc. is located in the South- Eastern part of

Saskatchewan.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. is committed to transporting crude oil in the safest and most

efficient manner possible. There is a Health and Safety Management System (H&MS)

[1] in place that ensures safety is maintained in all aspects of the business. Its

(Enbridges) Health and Safety Policy objective is to provide a safe work environment,

identify and control health and safety hazards and promote the safety of all company

employees and contractor personnel [1]. From this point on, Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

will be referred to as Enbridge.

Figure 3: Map of Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Canadian Pipeline System [1]

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 3


1.3 Paraffin Wax

Paraffin wax deposits are naturally occurring compounds, not solub le in crude oils.

Paraffin particles are made of straight chain, single bond hydrocarbons called alkanes that

can exist in various states, gas, liquid, or solid, depending on the temperature. As the

temperature decreases paraffin particles coagulate, creating paraffin wax. The viscosity

of crude oil increase as the temperature is reduced. When crude oil drops below its cloud

point temperature paraffin particles form crystals, known as paraffin wax (Figure 4).

Typical melting point of paraffin wax ranges from 49C to 71C, depending on

concentration and chemical composition [2].

Figure 4: Paraffin Wax Removal from Receiver Barrel

The temperature of the crude oil that flows through the pipeline is not constant.

The oil will enter the pipeline at a maximum temperature of 40C and cool as it flows

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 4


through the pipeline to temperatures as low as 0C. The average density of medium

crude oil is 830 kg/m3 , with a kinematic viscosity of 57.6 cSt at 10C [3].

As the temperature of the crude oil begins to drop and the paraffin wax precipitates

from the oil, problems with flow occur. The paraffin wax migrates towards the inside

surface of the pipeline walls. If the paraffin wax is not removed it will build up and

restrict the flow of crude oil.

Paraffin wax contains hydrogen sulphide, a highly toxic gas that interferes with

cellular respiration. Hydrogen sulphide is a potent chemical asphyxiant, combining with

haemoglobin and with cytochromes in the body, which means it will rapidly stop oxygen

from access to cellular metabolism [4]. Hydrogen sulphide has a foul smell (like rotten

eggs) but quickly paralyses the sense of smell; therefore smell cannot be relied upon to

provide warnings of the gas.

1.4 Pig Cleaning

A pig can be of many different forms, materials and sizes and be used for different

purposes. Pigs may be used to detect corrosion in a pipeline, remove liquids or loose

debris (usually spherical pigs), or to scrape the inner diameter of a pipe wall to clean a

pipeline. The cleaning pig application used by Enbridge, was examined for the design

problem. The current system uses hard density urethane pigs to scrape paraffin wax from

the inside of the pipeline. The particular pig in use is an Enduro UreCast Scraper Pig [5]

seen in Figure 5. To effectively scrape the pipeline walls the pig diameter is slightly

larger than the inside diameter of the pipeline. The two driving cups (one in the front and

one in the back) create a differential pressure across the pigs length to force the pig

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 5


downstream. The scraping plates are present to remove paraffin wax build- up within the

pipeline. The hook at the front of the pig is used for removal from the receiver barrel.

Figure 5: Scraper Pig for 4 Pipe

Pig cleaning is completed weekly to reduce the amount of paraffin wax build- up in

the pipeline. This is the optimal frequency Enbridge uses to clean the pipeline. A pig is

manually sent into the pipeline at the pig launching station. The pig launching station is a

designated area where the pipeline comes above ground so that a pig can be placed into

the pipeline. The pig travels the length of the pipeline driven by the flow of the crude oil

and the difference in pressure across the pig. The pig scrapes the paraffin wax from the

pipeline walls and pushes the paraffin wax downstream. At the pig receiving station

(Figure 6), the pipeline emerges above ground where the pig and paraffin wax are

removed.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 6


Figure 6: Pig Receiving Station Schematic

At the pig receiving station the pig is trapped in the receiver barrel. The receiver

barrel is approximately 36 (914 mm) in length with a larger diameter than the pipeline.

The 4 (102 mm) nominal diameter pipeline examined has a receiver barrel of 6 (152

mm) nominal diameter. The pig will remain in the receiver until it is manually removed.

The kicker- line and bypass line have nominal diameters of 3 (76 mm), to ensure that the

pig enters and remains in the receiver barrel. To remove the pig, an operator is required

to isolate the receiver barrel. The receiver barrel is isolated by closing the 4 (102 mm)

block valve, located upstream of the receiver, and the kicker- line valve. The bypass

valve is opened to allow the crude oil to flow downstream. The pressure in the receiver

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 7


barrel is relieved by draining the crude oil. The receiver flange is opened and the paraffin

wax and pig are removed using a long metal rod.

1.5 Paraffin Wax Problem in the Receiver Barrel

The pigs sent through the pipeline for cleaning can push a large volume of paraffin

wax. The amount of paraffin wax may be enough to fill the entire volume of the receiver

barrel. The operator experiences difficulty removing the paraffin wax and pig at times

when the receiver barrel is full of compacted paraffin wax. The operator must dig the

compacted paraffin wax out of the receiver barrel and place it into a large bin outside the

receiving station. Once the paraffin wax is disposed of, the operator must dig the pig out.

The pig is removed by catching the pig hook with a metal rod and pulling it from the

receiver barrel. This process can be long and tedious.

There is a safety concern with an operator removing the paraffin wax from the

receiver barrel. The paraffin wax in the receiver barrel contains hydrogen sulphide (H2 S)

gas. There are serious hazards when dealing with hydrogen sulphide and exposure

should be monitored and limited. The risk of a safety incident is greatly decreased, when

the operator is not exposed to paraffin wax.

The paraffin wax that is removed from the receiver barrel is removed at a cost to

Enbridge. Enbridge collects the paraffin wax in a large container and twice a year it is

taken away to be processed. These processing fees are the responsibility of Enbridge.

The paraffin wax that is sent away for processing is material that Enbridge could count as

product in the flow meters. Flow meters are located downstream of the receivers and

used to monitor the transported product. Breaking up the paraffin wax so that it can

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 8


continue to flow through the pipeline will save yearly processing fees, as well the saved

paraffin wax can be counted as product for Enbridge. The time of exposure to hydrogen

sulphide will be reduced, as well as the manual labour involved to remove the paraffin

wax.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 9


2.0 Design Objectives

The problem proposed by Enbridge is to find an improved method to remove the

cleaning pig from the receiver barrel. Enbridge would like a solution that would allow an

operator to enter the receiving station, open the receiver barrel flange and remove the pig

without having to remove the compacted paraffin wax. Several options are investigated

in order to select the most practical and feasible solution for the pipeline company to

implement.

The objective of the project has been broken down so that different components of

the problem can be addressed. The first objective is to minimize the amount of labour

and time taken to remove the pig and paraffin wax build-up from the receiver barrel. A

part of the first objective is to improve the safety aspect of the pig removal operation.

The second objective is to investigate a way to minimize the amount of, or possibly

eliminate, the paraffin wax removed from the pipeline. This would eliminate paraffin

wax processing fees and allow the paraffin wax to be counted as product, reduce cost due

to labour and reduce exposure to hydrogen sulphide.

The third objective is to determine a way to break-up or emulsify the paraffin wax

build-up in the receiver barrel. The emulsified paraffin wax will flow downstream, and

eliminate the problem of removing the paraffin wax. Finally, it is the objective of the

design group to complete a cost analysis of the proposed design. All of the necessary

components were itemized and quotes for components were received. The economic

assessment took into account component, installation, maintenance, and operating costs,

and processing fees for paraffin wax.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 10


3.0 Design Alternatives

3.1 Alternative l: Use of Solvents

One alternative design considered is to introduce a chemical solvent to dissolve

paraffin wax into small particles. The solvent will mix with the paraffin wax and the

mixture flushed down the line. This alternative is implemented at production well heads

where paraffin wax and asphaltene deposits are a problem. Asphaltene deposits

precipitate from the crude oil when pressure is reduced. Continuous injection of paraffin

wax inhibitors into the well casing and surface lead lines to minimize the build-up and

accumulation of paraffin wax particles. Careful consideration must be made when

selecting inhibitors, so that severe corrosion problems or high potential to react with

flame exposure are not accelerated. [6]

The costs associated with the use of paraffin wax inhibitors prevent further

investigation of this option. Injection of the solvent is required each time the pig is

removed; therefore a cost recovery is not possible. There is potential for this alternative

if the cost of the inhibitors is reduced.

3.2 Alternative 2: Heat Trace and Insulate

A second alternative examined is to add heat to the compacted paraffin wax.

Heating the receiver raises the temperature of the paraffin wax above the melting point.

The paraffin wax is in a more viscous form and easily pumped to the downstream battery.

Electric heat tracing and insulation can be used to minimize heat loss to the environment

and prevent personnel injury.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 11


Heat tracing is primarily used to maintain flow temperature, not to be used to

increase the temperature of the product in the pipe. A proper heat exchanger must be

implemented to increase product temperature. The use of a heat exchanger is not

feasible, because adequate resources are not available at the site.

Further investigation showed that adding heat would not solve the paraffin wax

problem. The concentration of paraffin wax in the receiver is much higher than in the

process line, once the heated paraffin wax begins to flow to the battery, paraffin particles

will fall out of the crude oil. This would create a paraffin wax build-up problem

downstream of the receiver; therefore the objectives are not met.

3.3 Alternative 3: Microwave transmission

The next method is to use a small microwave source to melt the paraffin wax. The

microwaves heat the paraffin wax slightly above its melting point. The liquid form of the

paraffin wax is able to flow through the pipeline. Microwaves are produced by a device

called a magnetron. The magnetron is a diode-type electron tube, which is used to

produce the specific frequency tuned to the natural resonance of the paraffin wax

molecule. [7]

The microwave source is installed on the outer diameter of the pipe wall. To

achieve the best results the receiver barrel must be isolated by automated valves to

contain the microwave energy. When the pig enters the receiver barrel, the valves

surrounding the receiver barrel will close and the microwaves transmitted. The paraffin

wax is heated to allow it to flow easily.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 12


Once the heated paraffin wax leaves the receiver barrel it is re- introduced into the

cold pipeline and the paraffin wax will precipitate out quickly, as in alternative 2 (Heat

Trace and Insulate). The paraffin wax build-up problem is not eliminated, but pushed

downstream and cause the meters to be plugged.

3.4 Alternative 4: Ultrasonic Transducer

An alternate design is to use a high-power sound wave produced by an ultrasonic

transducer. The ultrasonic transducer relieves the intermolecular stresses of the paraffin

wax and allows it to flow downstream of the receiver barrel. After consulting a number

of manufacturers of ultrasonic transducers, it was discovered that the ultrasonic waves

would pass through the paraffin wax and crude oil, and not activate the molecules in a

significant manner. [8]

3.5 Alternative 5: Alternative Pigging

Alternate pig shapes and material of construction were reviewed, as were alternate

pigging methods. Both alternatives are discounted, because neither meets the

requirements and needs of Enbridge. Alternate pigs are not an option because Enbridge

requires a pig to be stiff enough to scrape the heavy paraffin wax from the interior of the

pipe walls, and long enough so that a pig will not become caught in the bends and tees of

the pipeline. Enbridge expressed success with the current pigs and had concerns of using

an alternate. Pigging the pipeline more often is also considered. This may help reduce

the amount of paraffin wax in the receiver barrel each time the pig is removed, but is not

an acceptable solution. The paraffin wax will still deposit in the receiver barrel and the

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 13


paraffin wax would still require processing at the expense of Enbridge. The risk of a

large slug of paraffin wax in the receiver barrel is still present.

3.6 Alternative 6: Electro -magnetic field

Another design alternative is to implement a high power alternating magnetic field

in conjunc tion with the Paraffin Control System (PCS). The theory is to disrupt the

bonds between the molecules of the paraffin wax and create a homogenous mixture that

is easily transported downstream. The PCS uses electromagnetic waves to keep the

paraffin wax suspended in the oil. This idea was rejected because it is dependant on the

PCS, which has not yet been implemented on the Enbridge pipeline network.

3.7 Alternative 7: Paraffin Wax Emulsification with Nozzles

A potential alternative is to use a crude oil injection system to emulsify the paraffin

wax. The system uses mounted nozzles to inject light crude oil from a nearby pipeline

into the receiver barrel. The receiver barrel will be isolated by the main line block valve

and kicker line valve in order to open the receiver flange and remove the pig. To isolate

the receiver barrel a sump, vented to the atmosphere, is required for bleeding the receiver

barrel of crude oil after emulsification is complete.

As seen in Figure 7, the layout of the receiving station is almost unchanged from

the original configuration. The bypass line and all flanged connections will remain

unaltered. The receiver barrel will be altered to add six nozzles to the pipe. Each nozzle

will be attached with 1 (25 mm) nominal diameter tubing to a sump. A sump and pump

are required to drain the receiver barrel and re- introduce the fluid into the system,

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 14


therefore losing minimal volume of product. The pressure in the receiver must be

relieved by draining the contents of the receiver barrel so the pig can be removed by

opening the receiver barrel flange.

Figure 7: Alternate Design Proposal Schematic

The valves between the light crude oil line and the sump, and the sump and the six

nozzles, are opened and the pump and motor turned on. The light crude oil is injected in

the receiver barrel to emulsify the paraffin wax. The time required will vary depending

on the amount of paraffin wax and will require monitoring to be optimized. The valve

between the light crude oil line and the sump is closed and allows the sump to empty.

The pump and motor are turned off so the receiver barrel may be isolated. The block

valve, kicker line valve and valve from the nozzles to the sump are closed as the valve

from the receiver barrel drain to the sump is opened. The liquid mixture of light and

heavy crude oil is drained into the sump and the valve is closed. The operator can open

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 15


the receiver flange and remove the pig without having to remove any paraffin wax. Once

the pig is removed the operator must close the receiver flange and reopen the kicker line

valve, block valve and valve between the nozzles and the sump. The pump and motor are

activated again so that the mixture of light and heavy crude oil can be pumped back into

the receiver barrel and the sump emptied.

Alternative 7 eliminates the loss of all paraffin wax and reduces safety concerns.

The operator is exposed to dangerous hydrogen sulphide for a shorter period of time and

there will be no paraffin wax processing fees. However, this method is not selected as

the best alternative. This proposed solution is still labour intensive. The system of

operation requires more labour than the current method of removing the pig and paraffin

wax. This is in disagreement with the objective to ease the amount of time and labour,

therefore not considered. A solution is desired that incorporates the crude oil injection

system to emulsify the paraffin wax, without adding extra work.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 16


4.0 Selected Design Alternative

4.1 Overview of Operation

The design solutio n selected is to implement nozzles mounted into the receiver

barrel as discussed in the Paraffin Wax Emulsification with Nozzles design alternative.

A pig trap valve is used to catch the pig and the nozzles are automated to minimize the

labour involved. The nozzles inject a flat spray pattern of light crude oil that impacts the

slug of paraffin wax. Paraffin wax is broken up into a slurry mixture and sent down the

kicker line. A pig trap valve eliminates the need of a pump to recover the lost crude oil

during pig removal.

The nozzles are controlled using an electrical current signal from a pig signaller

device. The pig signaller sends the signal to a digital control box, starting the pump

motor and activates the crude oil injection. The nozzles are set on a timer, which can be

adjusted for varying conditions, such as cold temperatures or amount of paraffin wax

build up. Nozzles are strategically located and a grate is added at the top of the kicker

line so that pieces of the paraffin wax are broken into small enough pieces that the pieces

will not clog the meters and valves when it re-enters the main pipe line. Figure 8

illustrates the layout of the proposed design.

A pig isolation trap valve is installed just before the receiver barrel. The pig trap

valve allows the safe removal of the pig from the process line without bleeding the entire

contents of the receiver barrel. The installation of a back pressure valve is required with

the pig trap valve, to allow the crude oil to flow through the by-pass line when the pig is

in the pig trap valve. This is necessary to prevent damage to the pipe network caused by

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 17


flow hammer. Operation without an automatic bypass may lead to overpressure of the

line, a very dangerous process. [9]

Figure 8: Proposed Design Layout Schematic

To verify the theory that the inertial energy from the flow through the nozzles will

emulsify the paraffin wax, a proof of concept experiment was conducted. The

experiment would also provide information on paraffin wax behaviour, and required flow

rates and spray patterns necessary to achieve the optimal results. A model was

constructed such that pressure, flow rate, and nozzle size could be varied to generate a

stream of fluid to break up the paraffin wax.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 18


5.0 Experimentation

5.1 Emulsification Experiment

The theory of the design is based on the assumption that the paraffin wax will be

broken- up by inertial energy from the nozzle injection. To verify this assumption a test

apparatus was built and experimentation with the paraffin wax was completed. The

proof of concept was demonstrated using a cylindrical tube compacted with paraffin wax

then blasted through an orifice with hydraulic oil. A repeatable procedure was developed

such that comparable results could be obtained.

5.2 Apparatus

The apparatus test piece consisted of an acrylic pipe with a collar that held a nozzle

orifice plate to connect to the hydraulic pump, as seen in Figure 9. Two Teflon end caps

sealed the ends of the test piece that were used to insert paraffin wax.

Figure 9: Testing apparatus schematic

The acrylic test section, Teflon end caps and orifice plates to model the nozzles

were manufactured in the University of Saskatchewan Engineering Shops. The

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 19


University of Saskatchewan Engineering Hydraulics Laboratory provided a hydraulic

pump, pipe and hose fittings, various hose lengths, a flow meter and pressure gauges,

used in the assembly of the apparatus.

5.3 Procedure

Safety precautions were implemented prior to conducting the experimental

procedure. The locations of the safety shower, eyewash station, and H2 S monitor were

identified. Cellular and landline communications were confirmed and emergency

numbers noted. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and first aid procedures were

reviewed. The appropriate personal protective equipment, protective eyewear, lab coats,

and rubber gloves were donned. A review of the fume hood procedures were completed

for proper operation and the test procedures were reviewed.

The apparatus, shown in Figure 10, including the test piece, jig and hydraulic

pump, hoses and pressure gauge were mounted on a small mobile cart. The experiments

were conducted inside a fume hood in a University of Saskatchewan Chemical

Engineering Laboratory. The fume hood was required to exhaust all harmful hydrogen

sulphide gases. The hydraulic hose and pressure gauges were connected to the pump, and

two drain lines were routed to a waste jug. The 0.020 (0.51 mm) orifice plate was

selected and installed. A video camera, digital still camera, and data table were used to

record the results.

The paraffin wax was stored outside in temperature colder than -20C for several

days. The container was brought into the building and placed under the fume hood

before it was opened.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 20


A dry run of the equipment was completed without paraffin wax in the apparatus to

check for leaks in the hydraulic lines and connections and to confirm the pressure used.

The second test used paraffin wax compacted into the test piece by hand and set in place

by a wooden dowel. The paraffin wax was placed into the test piece approximated 4

(102 mm) past the nozzle end. Once the apparatus was loaded, the end cap was replaced

and a final inspection of the piping network was done.

Figure 10: Test Apparatus

The third test completed used paraffin wax compacted up to nozzle. The pump and

motor were turned on and the hydraulic oil was injected into the test piece at a higher

pressure. The fourth test was completed using a 0.030 (0.76 mm) slot to produce a

dovetail spray. The paraffin wax was inserted into the test piece to a point slightly before

the nozzle. The pump and motor were turned on and the end cap was simultaneously

tightened to simulate the paraffin wax flowing into the receiver. All results were

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 21


carefully observed and were recorded. The temperature of the paraffin wax was below

zero for each experiment.

Post testing cleanup and disposal of wastes were completed according to

regulations. The Waste Management Section of the Department of Health, Safety and

Environment on campus was notified and the materials were collected.

5.4 Experimental Results

A completed data sheet of the results is provided in Appendix A. The first test at a

pressure of 100 psig (789 kPa) indicated that the flow through the nozzle did not have

enough force to break-up the paraffin wax. At a pressure of 250 psig (1724 kPa) and

flow rate of 1.5 GPM (5.7 L/min), the flow cut the paraffin wax in half and the solid mass

of paraffin wax was pushed by the hydraulic fluid to the end of the test piece. There was

some observation of small paraffin wax particles at this point; the paraffin wax was not

emulsified as desired. The pressure was raised to 400 psig (2758 kPa) and a flow rate of

2.0 GPM (7.6 L/min) was obtained. The flow in the third experiment broke- up the

paraffin wax more effectively.

In the last experiment the 0.020 (0.51 mm) orifice plate was replaced with a 0.030

(0.76 mm) slot orifice plate. Operating at 400 psig (2758 kPa) and 2.0 GPM (7.6 L/min),

the paraffin wax slug was emulsified into acceptable particle sizes. The entire paraffin

wax slug was emulsified and the slurry flowed down the drain.

The results of this experiment drew the conclusion that the assumption of using

inertial energy to emulsify the paraffin wax will work. The dovetail flow from the 0.030

(0.76 mm) slot orifice plate proved to provide the optimal results.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 22


6.0 Design Components

6.1 Nozzles

Nozzle selection is based on experimental results. The dovetail nozzle, at a

pressure of 400 psig (2758 kPa) and flow rate of 2.0 GPM (7.6 L/min) supplied the

optimum results. Experimentally, the compacted paraffin wax was broken apart into

small particles that easily flowed downstream to the drain lines. The end result was a

better understanding of how the paraffin wax responds to inertial energy of nozzle flow.

The dovetails flat spray pattern produced desired results of emulsification.

6.1.1 Nozzle Selection

The VeeJet Spray Nozzle is selected based on calculations, shown in Appendix B

and the data sheet from Spraying Systems Co. using the experimental results as a

guideline for flow rate and pressure. Threadolets of (13 mm) nominal pipe size will

be welded to the pipe wall so that the nozzles can be connected using a VeeJet Spray

Nozzle model H-U, see Figure 11.

Figure 11: VeeJet Spray Nozzle model H-U [10]

The small capacity VeeJet Spray Nozzle provides a high impact flat spray pattern.

Strainers within the nozzle are available and recommended to prevent large particle sizes

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 23


from reaching the orifice. To select the orifice size, 2.2 GPM (8.3 L/min) at 200 psig

(1379 kPa) was used, which closely matches the results from the experiment. An orifice

size of 0.079 (2 mm) equivalent was selected to mate with the ( 13mm) threadolet

fitting and provide a wide spray angle.

The proposed system of a pump connected to 20 (6 m) of 1 (25 mm) nominal

diameter tubing (0.065 wall thickness) is used to analyze the system. Using six nozzles,

a flow meter, a pressure gauge, and a needle valve, complete with fittings, the system is

analyzed based on the 2.2 GPM (8.3 L/min) to determine the total pressure drop of the

network.

6.1.2 Nozzle Layout

The decision of nozzle placement and quantity is based on spray coverage available,

and good piping design techniques, as described in the Piping Design Manual [11].

The first two nozzles, (nozzles 1 and 2), upstream of the pig trap valve, are crucial

components of the design. The two nozzles will initiate the paraffin wax emulsion

process and prevent paraffin wax build- up in the valve that can prevent the pig from

reaching the pig trap valve. Refer to Figure 12 for layout.

A major restriction of nozzle layout was a limitation due to heat affected zones

from the welds. The Piping Design Manual recommends maintaining a minimum of 4

(102 mm) between branches and circumferential welds, and 10 (254 mm) from the

centerline to the outside wall for multiple branches. This is to prevent overlap of heat

affected zones. To connect the nozzle to the pipe, threadolets will be used. This fitting

will eliminate the need for gusseting a stub- in weld.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 24


A major restriction of nozzle layout was a limitation due to heat affected zones

from the welds. The Piping Design Manual recommends maintaining a minimum of 4

between branches and circumferential welds, and 10 centerline to outside wall for

multiple branches. This is to prevent overlap of heat affected zones. To connect the

nozzle to the header pipe, threadolets will be used. This fitting will eliminate the need for

gusseting a stub- in weld.

Nozzles are located to provide effective emulsification of the paraffin wax while,

carefully considering of the constraints of the heat affected zones. In addition to the two

nozzles located upstream of the pig trap valve, four nozzles are located downstream on

the receiver barrel.

Figure 12: Section view of Nozzle

The nozzle closest to the Argus valve on the top plane, nozzle 3, is purposely placed

above the kicker line to assist and direct flow down the kicker pipe. Nozzles 5 and 6 are

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 25


below the centerline on either side of the receiver barrel to create a cross pattern and

assist flow down the kicker- line. These two nozzles are equidistant between the butt

welds of the flanges. Nozzles 3, 5, and 6 are directed towards the grate to break up the

paraffin wax into particles small enough to pass through and prevent clogging at the

meters. Nozzle 4 is placed to prevent paraffin wax from plugging the end of the receiver

barrel as well to enhance the overall emulsification.

6.2 Pump Automation

The injection of light crude oil through the nozzles will be supplied by an electric

motor and positive displacement pump. A pig signaller is used to trigger the system. A

control box is required to set an automatic reset timer, complete with a manual override

switch. The control box will activate the electric motor and start the pump.

6.2.1 Pump and Piping Configuration

The pumping configuration for the light crude oil injection system consists of a 5 hp

(3.6 kW) electric motor, pump, pressure gauge, needle throttle valve, and flow meter all

connected with 1 (25 mm) stainless steel tubing. The two phase industrial motor and the

Vican Series AS-190 pump are readily available and currently used in Enbridge field

operation as seen in Figure 13. The pump can deliver up to 10 GPM (38 L/min) at a

maximum continuous pressure of 250 psig (1724 kPa) consuming 1 hp (0.7 kW). [12]

The light crude oil used for the nozzle injection system will be supplied from an adjacent

line, tapped into the system using a threadolet.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 26


Changes are expected in environmental and product conditions that will affect the

performance of the nozzle injection system. A throttle valve, pressure gauge, and a flow

meter will be used to regulate and monitor system. This will allow the system to be

monitored and optimized by Enbridge, therefore obtaining desired performance results.

Figure 13: Motor and Vican AS-190 pump

As shown in Appendix B, the AS-190 Vican pump cannot deliver the required line

pressure to the nozzles. The pump is limited to a hydrostatic pressure of 400 psig (2758

kPa) and maximum discharge of 250 psig (1724 kPa). The normal operating pressure in

the receiver barrel is 350 psig (2413 kPa), and can reach as high as 700 psig (4826 kPa).

The pump is not suited to overcome pressure in the receiver barrel of 350 psig (2413 kPa)

with the additional pressure losses of the nozzles and the corresponding tubing network.

The recommended pump for the design is the Vican GV-1333 pump. The 5 hp (3.7 kW)

motor is still acceptable to use with the recommended pump.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 27


6.2.2 Pig and Paraffin Wax Plug Signaller

A device to signal the arrival of the pig at the receiver barrel is required. The pig

signaller device will initiate the start of the crude oil injection process using an internal

micro switch. The pig signaller device selected is the pig PRO 52-000 plunger type

indicator, Figure 14 from Apache Pipeline Products [13]. It has a physical plunger that

will release when the pig has passed and a self-cancelling electronic relay switch.

Meridian Specialties, the supplier of the Argus valve and the back pressure valve, also

supply the Apache pig signaller. The pig signaller will work in applications involving

paraffin wax.

Figure 14: Apache Pig Signaller [13]

The pig or the slug of paraffin wax is used to activate the signaller. Either the pig

or slug of paraffin wax will depress the plunger when it is too compact to pass through

the pig stopper. Once the plunger has tripped, a switch will alarm the control box to

activate the crude oil injection system and the nozzles will begin to inject light crude oil

to break up the paraffin wax.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 28


6.2.3 Control System

The control system for the nozzle activation begins when the pig or plug of paraffin

wax enters the receiver barrel. The signaller indicates that a pig has arrived at the

receiving station and conveys a message back to the digital control box. The control box

is a manufactured part designed for the existing line voltage, available with a relay and

two timers. The relay is attached to the two timers, for either unsupervised or manual

pump activation. Manual operation is used to inject light crude oil into the receiver barrel

when additional emulsification is required after the pig is removed. For example, in -

40C weather the receiver barrel contents will begin to solidify once the crude oil

injection has ceased. Once the operator arrives it may be necessary to break-up the

paraffin wax in the receiver barrel once again. A 5 hp (3.7 kW) motor engaged by the

control box is used to drive a Vican GV-1333 gear pump. The light crude oil supplied to

the Vican pump is from a nearby pipeline, and pumps it into the VeeJet Spray nozzle.

Figure 15 outlines the connection to the control station. The automatic reset timer

on the digital control box is adjustable, such that for conditions of large paraffin wax

build up, the emulsification process can be extended. The manual operation will have an

override switch to stop or start the pump.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 29


Figure 15: Digital Control Station

6.3 Argus Pig Valve

The Argus pig trap valve chosen for the design is a product of Argus Machine Co.

Ltd. The distributing vendor dealt with for this project is Meridian Specialties Inc., based

out of Edmonton Alberta. The Argus pig valve comes in two models, model F for liquid

applications, and model P for gas applications. The valve configuration is similar to a

ball valve, with specific modifications that enable it to receive pigs. Figure 16 shows the

basic operational procedure of the valve, with an entry plug at the top to used access the

pig.

Inside the valve, there is a pig stopper. Three types of stoppers are available; the

center stopper is compatible with the Enduro UreCast scraper pig. The pig stopper

arrests the pig in the valve and causes the crude oil flow to cease (Figure 16-A). A

quarter turn is necessary to isolate the valve from the process line and rotate the pig into a

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 30


position to be removed (Figure 16-B). The valve cavity is relieved of pressure and fluid

in the orifice is drained using the drain valve. The entry plug at the top of the valve is

removed and the pig pulled out (Figure 16-C). The entry plug is reinstalled (Figure 16-

D) and the valve re-opened for regular operation (Figure 16-E). The liquid drained from

the isolation valve can be returned to the pipeline system.

Figure 16: Argus Pig Trap Valve Operation [14]

The 10.5 (267 mm) length constraint of the Enduro UreCast pig resulted in

significant modifications required to the Argus valve. The 4 (102 mm) Argus pig valve

is limited to a pig length of 7.5 (191 mm). Meridian Specialities has confirmed that

Argus Machine Co. can provide a custom built 4 (102 mm) pig trap valve to receive a

10.5 (267 mm) long pig. The alternative to this option is to use a 6 (152 mm) Argus

valve, which can accommodate the required length. There is however, no guarantee that

this valve will work. For the pig to travel along the pipeline a friction fit is required,

therefore, the 4 (102 mm) diameter pig may not be pushed far enough along the 6 (152

mm) diameter section to reach the pig trap. The optimal design is to use the 4 (102 mm)

valve with modifications completed by the valve manufacturer.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 31


6.4 Back Pressure Valve

A solution is required to allow the crude oil flow to continue to the battery, when

the pig is caught in the pig trap valve. To address the flow hammer issue, a back pressure

valve is implemented into the design solution. The pressure difference of 15 to 40 psig

(113 to 276 kPa) that is required to drive the pig is used to size the spring within the back

pressure valve. The pressure difference required to open the back pressure valve is

higher than that to drive the pig, once the back pressure valve opens, the crude oil routed

through the bypass line. The back pressure valve supplied by Meridian Specialties is

adjustable so that the line pressure required can be adjusted.

A procedural change is required with the new valve configuration. All gate valves

will remain open during operation. The gate valves will not be eliminated from the

system, so that positive isolation is still available. The valve in the kicker line remains

open so the emulsified paraffin wax can proceed downstream. The valve in the bypass

line and the kicker line remain open to operate the back pressure valve.

A schematic diagram of the selected design is shown in Figure 17. Each component

is identified, and directional arrows are included to show the process. A complete

operation manual is included in Appendix C.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 32


Figure 17: Complete Schematic of Selected Design

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 33


7.0 Economic Assessment

The economic analysis is an integral component of the design solution. Enbridge is

concerned with the actual workings of the design and making pig removal less

troublesome while being more safety conscientious. The most difficult portion of the

economic assessment is to access to benefit of improving the operational safety. The

operators are exposed to hazardous hydrogen sulphide gas during the current operation of

pig and paraffin wax removal. Decreasing the risk to human life is immeasurable and

although it is not counted in the breakdown of the cost analysis it is a factor in the final

design chosen.

The current system is relatively inexpensive; therefore designing a system that

would be of less cost is difficult. Any new configuration or components will bring the

initial years expenses higher than the existing method of manually removing the pig and

paraffin wax. The implementation of a new pig removal system has immediate safety

benefits and lo ng term cost benefits that out weigh the initial installation fee.

The costs of three different alternatives have been assessed and compared with the

existing method of pig and paraffin wax removal. The cost for the initial installation and

annual cost have been examined as well as a future savings after 20 years. Table 1

contains a summary of the results of the cost analysis.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 34


Table 1: Cost Analysis of Alternatives

Design Year 0 (annual) Year 1 (annual) Year 20 (future worth) Rational


Alternative (Installation) (future worth) (accumulated cost) Savings
after 20
years
Existing Layout
(no changes) $11,000 $11,440 $351,661 $0
Crude Oil
Injection System
(nozzles) Most Expensive
$27,040 $14,937 $471,824 -$120,163 Labour Intensive
Crude Oil
Injection System
with 6" Argus
Valve $47,691 $7,573 $273,213 $78,448 Not Guaranteed
Crude Oil
Injection System
with 4" Modified
Argus Valve $54,120 $7,573 $279,642 $72,019 Optimal Design

The existing layout option is the current method of removing a pig and paraffin

wax at the Gapview Terminal for one pig receiver. The annual cost to Enbridge takes

into account the pig fees, paraffin wax processing fees, and the labour to remove the

paraffin wax. The paraffin wax removed each time a pig is removed is accounted for and

added as a loss to Enbridge.

The second alternative gives the cost of implementing the crude oil injection

system without a pig trap valve to remove the pig. The alternative appears to be

attractive however, over the course of 20 years the cost due to labour raises the total

accumulated cost higher than that of the existing method. The manual labour and time

taken to complete the steps involved with the pig receiver emulsification and cost

associated with the labour is the reason the system without a pig trap valve is not

recommended.

The last two alternatives are very similar. After installation costs the annual costs

to Enbridge will be identical. Both alternatives include the crude oil injection system

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 35


with a pig trap valve. Originally, a quote for a 4 (102 mm) Argus pig trap valve was

requested. The cost of the 4 (102 mm) pig trap valve showed promising results but it

was found that the internal valve cavity length was only 7.5 (191mm). The restraints of

the pig length make it necessary to have a 10.5 (267 mm) internal valve cavity length

and the original 4 (102 mm) valve will not be acceptable. A 6 (152 mm) pig trap valve

has the required length, but not the required diameter and the 4 (102 mm) pig trap valve

has the required diameter but not the required length.

It was requested that Meridian Specialties modify the Argus pig trap valve to

meet the required length. The 4 (102 mm) modified pig trap valve quote contained a

much higher cost than expected. An alternative to buying a vendor modified valve is to

complete the modifications in- house. The 6 (152 mm) valve has the required length and

a slightly large inside diameter to allow for a friction fit of the pig. The option is to add

an additional sleeve in the 6 (152 mm) pig trap valve and connecting flanges. This

option will cost less than purchasing the vendor modified pig trap valve, but will not have

a guarantee to work or warrantee.

It is found that after 20 years Enbridge will save either $78,448 or $72,091 with

the nozzle injection system and either the 6 (152mm) owner modified, or 4 (102mm)

vendor modified pig trap valve respectively, over the existing pig and paraffin wax

removal technique. Either solution produces promising results and will greatly reduce

risk involved when removing a pig from the pipeline. The latter alternative of using the

4 (102 mm) vendor modified pig trap valve is the optimal alternative even though it does

not have the greatest pay back. This alternative has the least amount of risk associated

with its operation and will save Enbridge a significant amount of money.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 36


8.0 Conclusions

The method of removing the scraping pig and paraffin wax build- up from the

receiver barrel is an unfavourable process. Removing the pig and paraffin wax involves

tedious and potentially dangerous labour. Extra costs are incurred to Enbridge for

processing the removed paraffin wax. Those costs could be eliminated if the paraffin

wax were to be emulsified and counted as product. A light crude oil injection system,

together with a pig trap valve is the proposed method to ease the removal process of the

pig and eliminate product removal.

The light crude oil injection system provides a practical and feasible manner to

emulsify the paraffin wax. The testing completed led to the conclusion that the paraffin

wax will be broken-up successfully by the light crude oil injection. The system will be

automated to begin injecting light crude oil into the receiving station as soon as the pig

arrives. This injection system will emulsify the paraffin wax build- up and allow the flow

to continue downstream. A modified Argus pig trap valve will be set in the mainline to

catch the pig when it enters the valve. An operator can easily remove the pig from the

pig trap valve and loose a minimal amount of product.

The labour involved with the pig removal and paraffin wax loss is miniscule when

compared with the current method, therefore the proposed design is an attractive solution.

The great benefit of the system is the reduction of exposure to hydrogen sulphide gas.

An operator will no longer be exposed to hydrogen sulphide gas as the operator once was,

removing the paraffin wax from the receiver barrel. The proposed design will be an

expense to Enbridge for installation, but will reduce the annual operating costs. This

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 37


reduction will allow Enbridge to save money while increasing the safety of the pig

removal operation.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 38


9.0 Recommendations for Future Work

The light crude oil injection nozzles, together with the pig trap valve will be an

effective way of easily removing a pig for the receiving station. The pig trap valve will

provide a simple method of removing the pig while keeping safety at the utmost of

importance.

It is the recommendation that the piping layout at the Gapview Terminal be

redesigned as described by the design solution in this report. The light crude oil injection

system should be implemented with four nozzles inserted in the receiver barrel and two

nozzles in the pipeline before the pig trap valve. The light crude injection will ensure

that the paraffin wax is emulsified to flow downstream. It is also recommended that the

4 vendor modified Argus pig trap valve be inserted directly before the receiver barrel.

The pig trap valve will catch the pig and trap only a small amount of crude oil with it,

which can be drained and introduced back into the pipeline. The pig trap valve is an

integral part of ensuring a high quality of safety with the operation. The operation

procedure outlined in Appendix C should be followed to ensure the effectiveness of the

system.

A substitute to the modified 4 (102 mm) pig trap Argus Valve is to use a 6 (152

mm) unmodified pig trap Argus valve. The 4 (102mm) vendor modified flange will be

$6,429 more than the owner modified valve. The 6 (152 mm) valve is long enough to

accommodate the 10.5 (267 mm) length of the pig used, but the diameter is too great.

There is a possibility that the friction fit pig will not be pushed completely into the valve

in order to remove it. The valve and connecting flanges will require a sleeve

implemented to maintain a 4 diameter path into the valve. This alternative is not

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 39


recommended, due to the fact that an owner (Enbridge) modified flange will not be

guaranteed by Meridian Specialties. In the instance that the owner modifications do not

function as designed for the cost of repairs would be at the charged of Enbridge.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 40


References

[1] Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Pipelines,


http://www.enbridge.com/pipelines/index.html, [Accessed January, 2003]

[2] Sharon Chemicals & Trade Co., Ltd. http://www.i-sctc.com/Wax.htm [accessed


January 2003].

[3] Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc. Crude Oil Type Data Sheet.

[4] Health, Environment and Work, Hydrogen Sulphide


http://www.agius.com/hew/index.htm, [Accessed January 2003].

[5] Enduro Pipeline Services Inc., Enduro UreCasts http://www.enduropls.com,


[Accessed January, 2003].

[6] Heinze,L et. al. Proceedings of the Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, A
Review of past 50 years of Paraffin Prevention and Removal Techniques as
Presented in SWPSC, [2001].

[7] J. Carlton Gallawa The Magnetron Tube Structure and Operation


www.gallawa.com/microtech/magnetron.html [Accessed January 2003].

[8] Keith Mc Laughlin, ABLE Instruments & Controls Limited, private communication,
advancedndt@anindt.abel.co.uk [November 2002].

[9] Pipe Tech Co. Aggressive Pigging of Oil and Gas Production and Gathering Systems,
Pipe Tech Co. Ltd.

[10] Catalogue 60B Express, VeeJet Spray Nozzles, standard spray, small capacity
Spraying Systems Co. [2003].

[11] E.K. Consulting and Design Piping Design Manual Kolster, E, Calgary Alberta
[1989].

[12] Viking Pump of Canada Inc. Heavy Duty Pumps,


http://www.vicanpump.com/products/heavyduty.htm [Accessed January 2003].

[13] Apache Pipeline Products pigPRO Electrical Indicator Auto Reset,


http://www.apachepipe.com/f_prod.htm [Accessed January 2003].

[14] Argus Machine Co. Ltd. Argus Pig Valves Brochure


http://www.argusmachine.com/prod_spec/pig_valves/pigvalve.htm, [Accessed
January 2003].

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 41


[15] Crane Valves Co. Flow of Fluids through Valves Fittings and Pipe Technical
Paper No. 410, Crane Co. [1999].

[16] Newnan, Donald G., Engineering Economics Review Second Edition, Engineering
Press Inc., [1990].

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 42


Appendices

Appendix A: Experimental Results ..................................................................................A1

Appendix B: Nozzle and Pump Selection ........................................................................ B1

Appendix C: Manual for nozzle automation ....................................................................C1

Appendix D: Economic Analysis .....................................................................................D1

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier 43


Appendix A:

Experimental Results

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A1


Table A1: Experimental Observations
DATE: January 16, 2003

TEST
ORIFICE PRESSURE FLOW RATE
TEST PLATE (psig) (GPM) WAX COMPACTION OBSERVATIONS
Very poor spray pattern. The
flow barely seemd to be exiting.
Definitely not enough flow rate
0.020" and too low of pressure to be
100 >1
1 ( .5mm) No Wax effective with the wax.
(689 kPa) (>3.8 L/min) Increased the pressure to 250
DIAM.
psig (1724 kPa) and tested
continued testing.

Wax packed in to end Flow rate from nozzle cut


of test apparatus and compacted wax at the point on
pushed in 9.0 cm injection and caused the 3.5" (90
past the nozzle. mm) of wax to push down the
Stick pushed in length of the apparatus tube.
0.020" 1.0-1.5 ~10cm. Tightly Hydaulic oil continued to flow
250
2 ( .5mm) (3.8-5.7
(1724 kPa) compacted. and some emulsification was
DIAM. L/min)
seen but very little. Hydraulic oil
exited the outlet vent, therefore
knew apparatus would not burst.

Additional wax Flow rate from nozzle broke up


packed into wax and began to emulisify into
apparatus end - wax particles. Hydraulic oil and wax
was only added until began to create a slurry and exit
0.020" it reached the nozzle. both outlet vent and main drain.
400 ~2.0 Tightly compacted The increase in pressure
3 ( .5mm)
(2758 kPa) (~7.6 L/min) produced much smaller particles
DIAM.
of wax and more mixing between
the two fluids.

Wax packed into BEST RESULTS! Wax broke up


apparatus end, very quickly into small particles
stopped just before and created a slurry with the
the nozzle. As pump hydraulic oil that easily flowed
Dovetail and motor were out both outlet vent and main
400 ~2.0 initiated the lid of drain. The area around the
4 0.030"
(2758 kPa) (~7.6 L/min) apparatus was nozzle was clean.
(.8mm)
screwed on, to
simulate wax being
pushed down the
line.

The following pictures are construction drawings of the test piece, collar, orifice plates

and test piece jig.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A2


Figure A1: Construction Drawing of Test Spool and End Caps

Figure A2: Construction Drawing of Nozzle Collar

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A3


Figure A3: Construction Drawing of 0.030 Slot Orifice Plate

Figure A4: Construction Drawing of Circular Orifice Plate

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A4


Figure A5: Construction Drawing of Testing Piece Jig Clamping Bracket

Figure A6: Construction Drawing of Test Piece Jig End Frame Member

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A5


Figure A7: Construction Drawing of Test Piece Jig Long Frame Member

Figure A8: Test Apparatus and Jig Assembly

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier A6


Appendix B:

Nozzle and Pump Selection

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B1


List of Symbols and Dimensions

d inside pipe/tube diameter [mm]

f friction factor [unitless]

K resistance coefficient [unitless]

L length of pipe run [m]

P line pressure [kPa]

V velocity of fluid [m/s]

ration of small diameter to large diameter of an orifice [unitless]

?P pressure difference [kPa]

? angle of reduction of an orifice []

? kinematic viscosity [cSt]

? density [kg/m3 ]

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B2


From the results of the proof of concept experiment (section 5.0), the orifice is sized

for the nozzle and pig trap valve proposal. It consists of using six nozzles at a flow rate

of 2 gallons per minute (7.6 L/min). Using this information and data from Table B1, an

orifice size is determined.

Table B1: VeeJet Small Capacity Nozzle DataB1

A spray angle of 95 at ?P=40 psig (276 kPa) was chosen to provide effective

surface coverage in the receiver barrel. Selecting a (13 mm) connection size to mate

with the threadolet, model H-U was chosen. To achieve optimum results, the desired

capacity concluded from the experiment, at ? P=200 psig (1379 kPa), and a capacity of

B1
Catalogue 60B Express, VeeJet Spray Nozzles, standard spray, small capacity Spraying Systems Co.
(2003)

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B3


2.2 GPM (8.3 L/min) would be achieved using the 0.079 (2 mm) equivalents orifice,

VeeJet flat spray nozzle.

The first step in sizing the pump is to determine the capacity required. Using six

nozzles, the supplied flow rate from the pump is 13.2 GPM (50 L/min). The second step

is to determine the viscosity of the working fluid. Enbridge provided a data sheet of

typical properties of various crude oil types. From this data, an average value of

viscosity was taken to complete the analysis. This assumption made is due to varying

products that may be in the light crude receiver. The average viscosity is ? = 57.6 cSt.

The average density is ?=826.9 kg/m3 .

The pressure loss of the system is then calculated to determine output requirements

of the pump. Using Crane Flow of FluidsB2 , resistance coefficients, K, for the system

were determined.

Entrance: K e = 0.78

L
Pipe: Kp = f
d

(
0.8 sin 1 2 )
Reducer: KR = 2
4

Valve: K v = 18 f

Pressure Gauge: K pg = 20 f

Flow meter: K fm = 30 f

Tee: KT = 20 f

Elbow: K fm = 30 f

B2
Crane Valves Co. Flow of Fluids through Valves Fittings and Pipe Technical Paper No. 410, Crane
Co. (1999).

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B4


where d=inside diameter, f=friction factor, L=length, =ratio of small diameter to large

diameter, and ? angle of reduction.

To calculate the Reynolds number, Re.

d V
Re = 1000 ,

where d=inside diameter [mm], V is velocity [m/s], and ? is kinematic viscosity [cSt].

The friction factor of laminar flow can be approximated using

64
f =
Re

Using a system consisting of 20 feet (6 m) of 1 nominal diameter steel tubing

(inside diameter is 25.3 mm), six nozzles, one pressure gauge, one flow meter, and

fittings, a total K of the system is found. The pressure drop of the system is then

calculated using the following relation.

K total V 2
P =
2

For this particular set up, the ?P is 27.7 psig (191 kPa). Adding the 400 psig (2758 kPa)

across the nozzles, the total system pressure is 427.7 psig (2949 kPa). This is beyond the

capacity of the AS190 Vican pump Enbridge wishes to use, as shown in Table B2.

As the table shows, the maximum hydrostatic pressure of this pump is 400 psig

(2758 kPa). The line pressure of the inlet light crude oil will be normally operating at

350 psig (2413 kPa), therefore, this pump cannot be used at this setting. The inlet line to

the pump can be as high as 700 psig (4826 kPa).

From the proof of concept experiment, satisfactory results were achieved at 250

psig (1724 kPa) and a flow rate of 1 to 1.5 GPM (3.9 to 5.6 L/min). Using these

variables, the re-calculated ?P is 12.9 psig (89 kPa) and the total system pressure

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B5


required is 262.9 psig (1813 kPa). The Vican specification sheet indicates that the

maximum discharge pressure is limited to 250 psig (1724 kPa) , therefore, the AS190

pump cannot be used.

Table B2: Vican Heavy Duty General PumpB3

At this point, a Vican representative was contacted for assistance. The suggestion

was that the Vican GV 1333 pump be used in this application. The hydrostatic pressure

of the pump is 2150 psig (14 824 kPa). Operating at recommended speed of 1750 rpm,

the required flow rate can be supplied to the nozzles for the optimal flow rate of 2.2 GPM

(8.3 L/min) at each nozzle.

B3
Viking Pump of Canada Inc. Heavy Duty Pumps,
http://www.vicanpump.com/products/heavyduty.htm [Accessed January 2003].

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier B6


Appendix C:

Manual for nozzle automation

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier C1


Due to varying operating conditions of flow rate and pressure, and different

environmental conditions, such as temperature, several scenarios may result. To use the

nozzle injection/pig trap valve system to its optimal effectiveness, a procedure has been

constructed to provide favourable results. The procedure assumes that the pig has already

been sent into the pipe line and all required safety precautions have been reviewed.

1. Once the pig has reached the pig trap valve, ensure the back pressure bypass valve

is open. A flag on the pig signaller is raised when the pig has arrived. The pig

signaller activates the nozzle injection.

2. Close the pig trap valve by turning the handle to the closed position.

3. Bleed the pressure and fluid from the valve cavity through its bleed valve.

4. When the pig trap valve has been completely bled down, loosen the entry cap on

the top of the valve with the appropriate impact wrench.

5. Remove the entry cap and pig from the valve.

6. Reinstall the entry cap and make sure that all bleed vents are closed.

7. Open the pig trap valve to resume normal flow.

8. If flow is not moving through the receiver and is continuing to flow through the

bypass line, then the nozzles must be turned on manually.

9. Activate manual override on the control box to turn on the pump. Set the timer

for a complete flush of the receiver barrel.

10. After the pump has stopped, check for flow through the receiver. If there is no

flow, return to step 9 and repeat.

11. Re- introduce drained fluid into the pipe system.

12. Place scraper pig in safe container for transport.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier C2


Appendix D:

Economic Analysis

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D1


List of Symbols and Dimensions

A Magnitude of cash flow [$]

FWj Future Worth of alternative j [$]

i Minimal Attractive Rate of Return (MARR) [%]

n Number of Periods [unitless]

t total number of cash flows [unitless]

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D2


The cost analysis for three different design alternatives is examined and compared

to the existing method of removing the pig and paraffin wax for the receiver barrel. The

economic analysis is based on a 20 year life expectancy. An accumulated future worth is

taken after 20 years of the three alternatives and compared. The initial installation cost is

in addition to year 0 costs.

The formula for calculating future worth is,

n
FW j (i ) = A jt (1 + i )
n 1 D1

t =o

where, FWj(i) is the future worth of the alternative j at an minimal attractive rate of return

i%. Ajt is the magnitude of cash flow and n is the total number of interest periods. The

minimal attractive rate of return (MARR) is set at 4%.

The three different alternatives are compared to the existing method of removing

the paraffin wax and pig. Tables D1 to D3 display the cost of all components required

from the cost estimates received from vendors and catalogues. The materials specified

are all readily accessible to Enbridge.

Table D1 is a comparison of the cost involved with the existing operation and the

alternate design of implementing the crude oil injection system. This alternative is

described in more detail in Section 3.7 of this report. Table D2 is a comparison of the

costs involved with the existing operation and the alternate design of implementing the

crude oil injection system with a 6 (152 mm) Argus pig trap valve that will be modified

by Enbridge to enclose the diameter of the valve and flange connections to accommodate

a 4 (102 mm) diameter pig. Table D3 is a comparison of the cost involved with the

existing operation and the alternate design of implementing the crude oil injection system

D1
Newnan, Donald G., Engineering Economics Review Second Edition, Engineering Press Inc., (1990)

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D3


with a 4 (102 mm) Argus pig trap valve that will be modified by Argus Machine Co. to

accommodate the length of pig used by Enbridge.

Table D1: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System

Cost (pre
Item Cost (each) Amount (per year)
year)
EXISTING SYSTEM
pig $300.00 17 (1pig/3wks) $5,100
3 3
lost product $130.00 /m 6 m $780
processing fees $1,000.00 /barrel 2 barrels/yr $2,000
labour $60.00 /hr 52 $3,120

ALTERNATIVE: CRUDE OIL INJECTION SYSTEM


pig $300.00 17 (1pig/3wks) $5,100
Nozzles $64.00 6 nozzles $384
Pump $6,081.00 1 $6,081
Motor $170.00 1 $170
Sump Tank $200.00 1 $200
RECEIVER
1/2" 3000# Threadolet $29.44 6 $177
1" Valve $44.00 1 $44
1" 3000# Weldolet $48.38 1 $48
4X6 " Reducer $16.01 1 $16
Grate $50.00 1 $50
3" elbow $12.42 1 $12
PUMP TO NOZZLES
1" SS Tubing $9.06 /ft 60 ft $544
1" Needle Valve $369.00 1 $369
1" flow meter $90.00 1 $90
1" pressure gauge 4" dial $92.70 1 $93
1"X1/2" Tee $158.00 1 $158
Pipe to Tube Connector $42.40 1 $42

Installation Fee $70.00 /hr 60 hrs $4,200


Power Consumption $0.74 /kWh 30 kWh $22
Annual Maintenance $60.00 /hr 24 hrs $1,440
3 3
Product Lost $0.00 /m 1.39 m $0
Processing Fees $0.00 /barrel 0.46 barrels/yr $0
Labour $60.00 /hr 130 hrs $7,800

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D4


Table D2: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System with 6 Argus Valve

Cost
Item Cost (each) Amount (per year)
(pre year)
EXISTING SYSTEM
pig $300.00 17 (1pig/3wks) $5,100
3 3
lost product $130.00 /m 6m $780
processing fees $1,000.00 /barrel 2 barrels/yr $2,000
labour $60.00 /hr 52 $3,120

ALTERNATE: Crude Oil Injection System with 6" Argus Valve (Owner-modified)
pig $300.00 17 (1pig/3wks) $5,100
Argus Pig Valve $12,629.00 1 $12,629
pig Signaller $1,909.00 1 $1,909
Nozzles $64.00 6 nozzles $384
Pump $6,081.00 1 $6,081
Motor $170.00 1 $170
Back Pressure Valve $3,000.00 1 $3,000
RECEIVER
6" 300#FLG $101.99 2 $204
3" 300# FLG $39.39 2 $79
1/2" 3000# Threadolet $29.44 6 $177
1" Valve $44.00 1 $44
1" 3000# Weldolet $48.38 1 $48
4X6 " Reducer $16.01 1 $16
6" Pipe ST WT A106 $241.40 /ft 6 $1,448
3" Pipe ST WT $98.20 /ft 6 $589
Grate $50.00 1 $50
3" elbow $12.42 1 $12
PUMP TO NOZZLES
1" SS Tubing $9.06 /ft 20 ft $181
1" Needle Valve $369.00 1 $369
1" flow meter $90.00 1 $90
1" pressure gauge 4" dial $92.70 1 $93
1"X1/2 " Tee $158.00 1 $158
Pipe to Tube Connector $42.40 1 $42
PIG SIGNALLER
electrical cable $1.49 /ft 40 ft $60
control box $325.00 1 $325

Installation Fee $70.00 /hr 175 hrs $12,250


Power Consumption $0.74 /kWh 30 /kWh $22
Annual Maintenance $60.00 /hr 10 hrs $600
3 3
Product Lost $0.00 /m 1.39 m $0
Processing Fees $0.00 /barrel 0.46 barrels/yr $0
Labour $60.00 /hr 26 1/2 hr/wk $1,560

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D5


Table D3: Component Cost of Crude Oil Injection System with 4 Argus Valve

Amount Cost
Item Cost (each) (per year) (pre year)
EXISTING SYTEM
pig $300.00 17 1pig/3wks $5,100
3 3
lost product $130.00 $/m 6m $780
processing fees $1,000.00 $/barrel 2 barrels/yr $2,000
labour $60.00 $/hr 52 $3,120

ALTERNATE: Crude Oil Injection System with 4" Argus Valve (Vendor-modified)
pig $300.00 17 1pig/3wks $5,100
Argus Pig Valve $24,375.00 1 $24,375
pig Signalar $1,909.00 1 $1,909
Nozzles $64.00 6 nozzles $384
Pump $6,081.00 1 $6,081
Motor $170.00 1 $170
Back Pressure Valve $3,000.00 1 $3,000
RECEIVER
4" 300#FLG $76.49 2 $153
3" 300# FLG $39.39 2 $79
1/2" 3000# Threadolet $29.44 6 $177
1" Valve $44.00 1 $44
1" 3000# Weldolet $48.38 1 $48
4X6 " Reducer $16.01 0 $0
6" Pipe ST WT A106 $241.40 $/ft 6 $1,448
3" Pipe ST WT $98.20 $/ft 6 $589
Grate $50.00 1 $50
3" elbow $12.42 1 $12
PUMP TO NOZZLES
1" SS Tubing $9.06 $/ft 20 ft $181
1" Needle Valve $369.00 1 $369
1" flowmeter $90.00 1 $90
1" pressure gauge 4" dial $92.70 1 $93
1X1/2 " Tee $158.00 1 $158
Pipe to Tube Connector $42.40 1 $42
PIG SIGNALAR
electrical cable $1.49 $/ft 40 ft $60
control box $325.00 1 $325

Intallation Fee $70.00 $/hr 100 hrs $7,000


Power Consumption $0.74 /kWh 30 /kWh $22
Annual Maintenance $60.00 $/hr 10 hrs $600
3 3
Product Lost $0.00 $/m 1.39 m $0
Processing Fees $0.00 $/barrel 0.46 barrels/yr $0
Labour $60.00 $/hr 26 1/2 hr/wk $1,560

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D6


The various costs were provided by vendors, specialty companies and the Enbridge

industry contact. The prices were passed on current prices for crude oil and components.

Table D4 encloses the component and sources for the items listed.

Table D4: Price List Sources

Item Sources of Prices


EXISTING SYSTEM
Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.
pig
1 pig a week at $300 per pig
Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.
lost product 3 3
$130/m with an estimated 6m per year lost
Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.
processing fees 3
$1000/barrel each barrel is 3m , 2 barrels removed per year
Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.
labour
$60/hr, 1 hour per week to remove pig and paraffin wax
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN COMPONENTS
pig Enbridge Pipelines (Saskatchewan) Inc.
Argus Pig Valve Meridian Specialties Inc.
pig Signaller Apache Pipeline Products
Nozzles John Brooks Company
Pump Viking Pumps Canada
Motor Viking Pumps Canada
Sump Tank Western Buy and Sell (Alberta)
Back Pressure Valve Meridian Specialties Inc.
RECEIVER
4" 300#FLG "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
6" 300#FLG "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
3" 300# FLG "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
1/2" 3000# Threadolet "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
1" Valve "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
1" 3000# Weldolet "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
4X6 " Reducer "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
6" Pipe ST WT A106 "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
3" Pipe ST WT "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
Grate "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
3" elbow "CCTF Company" http://www.cctf.com/
PUMP TO NOZZLES
1" SS Tubing "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
1" Needle Valve "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
1" flow meter "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
1" pressure gauge 4" dial "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
1"X1/2 " Tee "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
Pipe to Tube Connector "Saskatoon Fluid System Technologies" www.swagelok.com
PIG SIGNALLER
electrical cable Princess Auto Fall & Winter 2002 Catalogue
control box B&E Electronics

Installation Fee Estimated


Power Consumption Saskpower Current Rates
Annual Maintenance Estimated
Product Lost This will be crude oil drained from the Argus valve.
Processing Fees Not paraffin wax, therefore no processing fees associated.
Labour Estimated

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D7


The values used in the cost analysis of the existing method of removing the pig

from the receiver barrel were calculated from the average values received from the

industry contact at Enbridge. The associated costs with the existing layout are shown in

Table D5.

The costs related with the three design alternatives were determined on an

individual bases. The installation, yearly required labour and maintenance fees were

examined and estimated to determine the cost of each alternative. The summary of each

present worth installation cost and present worth annua l cost are summarized in Table

D5.

Table D5: Cost Comparison of Design Solution Options

Year 0 Year 20
Year 0 Year 0 (total cost) (future worth) Savings after
Design Alternative Rational
(Installation) (annual cost) (future (accumulated 20 years
worth) cost)
Existing Layout
$0 $11,000 $11,000 $351,661 $0
(no changes)

Crude Oil Injection


$12,678 $14,362 $27,040 $471,824 -$120,163 Most Expensive
System (nozzles)
Labour Intensive

Crude Oil Injection


System with 6" $40,409 $7,282 $47,691 $273,213 $78,448
Argus Valve
Not Guaranteed
Crude Oil Injection
System with 4"
$46,838 $7,282 $54,120 $279,642 $72,019
Modified Argus
Valve Optimal Design

The future worth value after 20 years of service for each alternative is compared to

the existing layout. The Figure D1 displays the future worth value of each alternative

over a span of 20 years. The chart clearly shows that payback of the 4 Argus valve

alternative will have a full investment payback within 10 years.

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier D8


Current 4" Argus 6" Argus Sump and Pump

$500,000

$450,000

Pig Receiver Wax Emulsifier


$400,000

$350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

Future Worth [$CAD]


$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time [years]

D9
Figure D1: Design Alternative Cost Comparison