Well Field Remote Monitoring and Control: Case Study at .... Campanella - Wellfield Remote... ·...

Well Field Remote Monitoring and Control:

Case Study at Crapo Hill Landfill

SWANA NJ Chapter - April 14th, 2015

Presented by: Andrew Campanella

©2014 Loci Controls, Inc. – Not for distribu:on

About the presenter

ANDY CAMPANELLA

-  B.S. Electrical Eng. and Computer Science at MIT

-  M.S. in System Design and Management at MIT

-  Founder and CEO of Loci Controls, Inc.

-  Inventor on 32 US patents, dozens of applications

-  Expert in control systems, instrumentation, power systems, and electronics

-  Introduction

-  Typical Landfill Gas Collection Process

-  Remote Monitoring and Automatic Control

-  Case Study - Crapo Hill Landfill

Outline


Typical gas collection system

1 TRASH GENERATES METHANE GAS

3 GAS BURNED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY

4 ELECTRICITY SOLD TO THE GRID

$$$

2 GAS COLLECTED FROM WELLS


•  Manual surveys of well field are very labor intensive

•  Infrequent measurement & tuning due to time/effort required

•  Well adjustments are an art rather than a science


Drawbacks of typical collection system

Automated well field control system


Installed hardware


Sensor Suite: CH4 CO2 O2 Temperature Pressure Flow rate


•  Set custom alarms •  Instantly identify problems •  View real time data •  Energy analytics

Control valve: Remote control 0-100% range Linearized output Solar powered


Control system objective

∂LFGE

∂t=∂LFGG

∂t

Gas Extraction = Gas Generation

- Stable gas quality

- Minimized emissions - Long term maximization of methanogenesis

- Eliminates risk of underground fire


Gas extraction modeling

•  Find correlations between variables at each well

•  Express correlations between wells •  Add outside data (weather, etc.)

•  Generate predictive estimates of well production at different operating points

•  Calculate optimum operation condition for each well


Crapo Hill Landfill in Dartmouth, MA


Landfill owner - Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District Landfill Site – 152 Acres Current Landfill Size - ~40 Acres Permitted Capacity – 100,000 Tons/yr Waste in Place - ~2,000,000 Tons

LFG-E Facility Owner – Commonwealth Resource Management Corporation End User - Power sold to NSTAR Generators – 4 Caterpillar 3516 Engines Generation Capacity – 3.2 MW


Crapo Hill Landfill in Dartmouth, MA


Want to quantify real world impact Outfit top 13 horizontal and leachate collector wells with automation system

- Wells account for > 60% of total flow All wells located in active area 3 month data collection: Aug – Nov 2014 Comparison against same period in 2013 and July 2014

Case Study Overview

Lessons learned

•  Very strong well to well interactions!

•  Unexpected problems with well flooding

•  Production increased through use of automated monitoring and control


Well to well interactions – Crapo Hill

A

B


Well A

Extraction Zone A

Well B

Extraction Zone B

+ f (LFGB )

Influence of Well B on A

∂LFGA

∂t≈ f (x1, x2,...)

∂LFGB

∂t≈ f (x1, x2,...) + f (LFGA )

Influence of Well A on B

Well to well interactions


Example of coupled wells – Crapo Hill

Methane killed from Sept 25 7pm

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

SCFM

Well A Flow Rate Well B Flow Rate

45

50

55

60

65

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

CH4

%

Well A CH4% Well B CH4%



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

SCFM


45

50

55

60

65

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

CH4

%


1 OPEN VALVE WELL A




0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

SCFM


45

50

55

60

65

4:48 PM 6:00 PM 7:12 PM 8:24 PM 9:36 PM 10:48 PM

CH4

%


2 DROP IN CH4 WELL B



Lessons learned





Horizontal Well Flooding


Real Time Detection of Well Flooding


Lessons learned





Pilot results - 25.8% higher power from automated wells!

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

1.408E+09 1.409E+09 1.41E+09 1.41E+09 1.411E+09 1.412E+09 WEEKS

Performance with Loci Baseline Performance

Gas E

xtra

ction

(m

illion

BTU

/min

ute)

6 days engines down in 2014 4 days engines down in 2013

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1 8 15 22 29

SCFM

DAY

Sept 2014 50% CH4 Sept 2013 50% CH4

AVG. 132 SCFM INCREASE

Total flow increase of 13.8%


MORE $$$


•  More gas = more revenue

•  Reduction of risks through continuous monitoring •  Underground fire or reactions •  Odor complaints •  Emissions violations

•  Labor savings – more efficient use of technician time

Potential for system automation

MORE GAS

THANK YOU!

SWANA NJ Chapter - April 14th, 2015


Andy Campanella

Email –[email protected] Phone – (585) 415-9950 www.locicontrols.com

Well Field Remote Monitoring and Control: Case Study at .... Campanella - Wellfield Remote... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Well Field Remote Monitoring and Control: Case Study at .... Campanella - Wellfield Remote... ·...