1. Midland Basin -
Central Division
 Hundreds of low producing tank batteries in the Permian Basin
 Much of operating equipment is passed its designed life
 $500,000 spent on vessel replacements since 2014
 What options are available when the separator fails to reduce
maintenance capital cost and/or increase production?
 Compare options technically, economically, and environmentally
 Design universal tool to determine when each option should be used
Cummins M Tank BatteryEquipment on Site
 1 vertical separator
 1 vertical heater treater
(Not in service)
 2-500 bbl steel oil tanks
(1955)
 1-300 bbl fiberglass water tank
(1993)
Production Data
 4 BOPD
 52 Mcf/D Gas
 10 BWPD
 2 wells producing to tank
battery
Criteria For Deciding Options
Economic
 Initial Capital
 Payback Period
 Return on Investment
 Net Present Value (NPV15)
Environmental
 Get old sites under current environmental regulations
 EPA (QuadO)
 6 tons/year VOC’s per tank
 TCEQ
 25 tons/year VOC’s per facility
Technical
 Option feasibility
 Mitigate Risks
 Reducing Backpressure
 Electricity
Potential Production Increase
Reduction of wellhead surface pressure (casing pressure)
 Using differential pressures, can estimate % increase
Theoretical site
15 BOPD, 30 Mcf/D Gas
Casing Pressure of 50 lbs
Pump intake pressure of 500 lbs
Can drop casing pressure from 50 lbs to 20 lbs
Potential increase of 7% ~ $20,00 more per year at site
Acknowledgements
Mentor: Colyn Jurek
Manager: Del Oliver
Stephanie Arriola
Brandon Merrill
Walter Fults
Fabio Lujan
Kyle Richter
Jennifer James
Brent Corwin
Eric Wooten
Joshua West
Corey Payne
Larry Sammons
University Relations
Occidental Petroleum
Economic Analysis of Options For Cummins M
Cummins M Conclusions
Gas is equivalent to 42% of total sales
 Need to keep gas sales
Minimal production increase at this site
 Very low surface pressure to begin with
 High PIP for these wells
Initial capital
 If electricity is on pad, initial capital is
drastically reduced
 Tank replacements drove up VRU costs
VRU not economical if under QuadO
 Other options need VCU
UniversalApplications
Economic Factors
 Gas oil ratio
 Production Rates
 Electrical Costs
Environmental Regulations
 TCEQ
 EPA (QuadO)
 H2S Control
Technical Issues
 Tank Conditions
 Production Increase
 Pressures on site
Automated Procedure Templates
Process Flowchart Facility Field Inputs Automated Outputs
Summary
 Found options to deal with marginal facilities
 Developed criteria to compare options
 Economic, Environmental, and Technical
 Created templates to analyze specific sites
 Automated flowchart with easy field inputs
 Gives best options to look at for each site
Future Applications
 Apply this study to the hundreds of low producing tank batteries
in the Permian Basin
 Lead to major initial cost savings
 Increases in production
 Bring old sites under current environmental regulations
 Extend the economic feasibility of sites
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
MARGINAL FACILITIES
Project Scope
Brady Parmenter
University of Tulsa – Mechanical Engineering
Facilities Engineering Intern
Permian Resources Midland Options Bypassing
Separators Pro’s Con’s
1. Produce to tanks +
vent
Inexpensive to keep battery producing
Easy to pipe up
Zero added maintenance
Potential production Increase
Lose gas sales
Environmental concerns
 Consult environmental
H2S content
2. Produce to tanks +
VRU
Maintain gas sales
Production Increase
Under current EPA (QuadO) requirements
High initial capital
More OPEX
Many need to run electrical lines
Need good tanks on site
 Tank replacements drive up costs
3. Produce directly to
compressor unit
Good for handling low fluid flow rates
Very easy to pipe in
Possible production Increase
Equipped with all valves needed
Rental or high initial capital
Only handle 30 BFD
If unit goes down, wells shut in
Can’t handle much H2S
Options Using
Separators
4. Replace separator Keep gas sales
Small separators are inexpensive
 Only need about 24” x 10’ (or smaller)
No gain
Holding backpressure on wells
Valve maintenance
5. Replace separator +
compressor unit
Potential production increase
More protection from down time
Can handle much greater than 30 BFD
Universal application to wide range of sites
Can’t handle much H2S
May need to run electrical line
Gas option available but more cost
 Can handle even less H2S
What Do We Do When The Separator Fails?
Trial Site
Develop computer code to
step through procedure
based on these criteria
 Flowchart gives visual step
through of procedure
 Validates computer program
 Allows double check of all options