IPTC-19734-MS

Innovative High Efficiency Oil Burner Proves to Solve Many Environmental

Challenges in Well Test Applications

Dalmo Wakabayashi and Mark McGouldrick, Halliburton

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The paper discusses how a new burner can solve environmental challenges in well test applications by
reducing the quantity of fallout, providing better control of the burning operation, and allowing operators
to adjust to changes in the well/weather conditions. In order to conduct successful well tests, substantial
amounts of oil must be brought to the surface, and in most instances, the safest and least expensive method
of disposal is to burn the produced oil. A quality smoke-free burn and drip-free operation is enabled through
an innovative advanced nozzle design installed in this new oil burner. The nozzle can precisely control the
flow of oil and air through the burner allowing, for the first time, closure with no unburned fuel escaping.
The nozzles are operated remotely and powered by an integrated pneumatic system using the combustion
air supply. The system permits control over each individual nozzle, enabling operators to adapt to varying
flow conditions to maintain efficient and flawless performance. A wide range of tests were conducted,
including combustion zone gas sampling and fallout testing. Over a three week testing period, the new
burner flawlessly executed full-scale burns and provided on-the-fly nozzle control, burner head rotation,
and instant drip-free shutdowns. The new burner demonstrated its capability to shut down all ten nozzles
from their full capacity in three tenths of a second with no visible unburned hydrocarbons or drips. The
new burner achieved a 99.99952% fallout efficiency; this is 14.58 times more efficient than any other
current oil burner product offering. In addition to the exceptional fallout efficiency, it also delivers 99.4%
combustion efficiency and 99.5% destruction efficiency allowing the calculation of CO2 emission rates,
which during testing was found to be 41Lbs/MMBtu. The first operation was conducted offshore in Brazil
where this new burner demonstrated the capability to control, monitor, and react to changing well conditions
for approximately three days without issue. It flowed in excess of 6,700 bbls, preventing a minimum of 69.48
liters of fallout from entering the sea. A total of 32 jobs were performed with the new burner system from
December 2014 to January of 2018 with a 100% success rate without contamination/fallouts. The totally
eliminated fallout volume, compared with the second most efficient burner system available in the market, is
2653.22 liters after burning a total of 257,490 bbl of hydrocarbons. In 60% of the field jobs, the burner was
rotated to accommodate wind direction or to improve burning efficiency. If a different burner system had
2 IPTC-19734-MS

been used, the burner efficiency would have lessened or, in a worst case scenario, the operation could have
been delayed and the well shut in until wind direction changed sufficiently to allow the burning operation.

Introduction
Well testing exploration and appraisal includes the production of hydrocarbons through a temporary
production facility with the objectives to obtain fluid samples, measure flow rates, measure initial pressure,
estimate reservoir volume, evaluate reservoir permeability and skin effects, and identify heterogeneities
and boundaries to help characterize the reservoir. Other important decisions, such as production methods,
facilities, and well productivity improvements, are made based on the information gathered during well
testing.
Gas produced during well testing is burned by gas flaring in most facilities, but the disposal of the liquid
hydrocarbons (oil and condensate) is more complex and constitutes an additional expense. Without oil
burners, onshore testing requires transportation infrastructure or tanker trucks where roads are available to
dispose of the produced oil, while offshore testing requires well testing vessels or barges for oil storage
where transportation infrastructure is not present or where the environmental regulatory restrictions require
their use.
Oil burners used in the oil and gas industry have advanced over time, and fallout of unburned
hydrocarbons and pollutants has reduced during well testing operations. Disposal of oil using burners has
become an environmentally acceptable solution and the most cost-effective means of well testing, especially
in remote land locations and offshore environments where transportation infrastructure has not yet been
developed.

Oil Burners
Well test burners have been used for more than 45 years, and the development of this technology allowed
oil wells to be tested without the need for large storage facilities, which could be problematic in offshore
environments or on land, depending on the location and the volume of storage required. Liquid hydrocarbon
burning during well testing operations can be problematic because poor combustion conditions result in
fallout of unburned hydrocarbons and emission of pollutants.
Quantifying the performance of well test oil burners is difficult because they discharge large quantities of
fuel into open air with no means to affect many of the typical combustion-control parameters, such as air-to-
fuel ratio, flame temperature, and turbulence, which can be easily controlled in enclosed burner applications.
Past development work to improve burner efficiency concentrated on atomization, fluid conditioning,
and water injection, which can have significant effects on burn quality. Unfortunately, however, most of the
flow conditions are determined by the rate of production, and air compressors are used at their maximum
rate, so the effectiveness of the burner design is a primary factor in determining burn quality. Traditionally,
oil burners have been passive components configured for expected flow conditions before operation and
are incapable of being adapted without shutting down operations. The new burner system discussed in this
paper was designed to provide a means to affect combustion parameters in real time in ways that would
allow combustion conditions to be varied, ensuring that quality efficient burns can be achieved. The system
permits control over each of the 10 individual nozzles remotely while monitoring key parameters to allow
operators to make adjustments to improve the quality of the burn.

Operation of Well Test Burners

The basic requirement for well test burners is that they efficiently dispose of the produced liquids over a wide
range of liquid hydrocarbons, flow rates, and ambient conditions. The produced liquids can include non-
combustibles, such as water, drilling mud, completion mud, stimulation fluids, and others, depending on
preceding operations and which stage of the well testing is taking place. The hydrocarbons composition and
IPTC-19734-MS 3

characteristics, such as viscosity, will also vary considerably from well to well. For heavy oil, the viscosity
needs to be reduced to suitable levels by applying heat for proper atomization to occur and consequent
efficient disposal by burning.
Burners consist of atomizers and an ignition source. Efficient liquid fuel spray combustion requires small
droplets that will completely vaporize during their residence time in the flame. Liquid fuel spray combustion
is actually the hydrocarbon vapor surrounding the droplet burning. Combustion occurs as the hydrocarbon
vapor mixes with the air and is exposed to an ignition source. Droplet vaporization is a function of the
initial droplet size, fluid properties, and heat of combustion. Oil is supplied to burners by means of pumps or
directly from an oil and gas separator during well tests. Air is supplied from compressors. Energy, from either
the oil flow, air flow, or a combination of both, sprays liquid fuel as tiny droplets into the air. Flame stability is
an important characteristic of combustion applications. The high nozzle exit velocity that produces superior
atomization and efficient combustion can be subject to instability of the burner system (Young 1996).
The environmental pollutants that need to be addressed by the design of any oil burner are fallout and
air pollution. Fallout can be caused by inadequately atomized oil spray that produces large droplets which
are not fully burned and will fall out of the combustion zone because of gravity. The unburned oil that
falls can pollute the soil and/or water and, depending on the quantity, impact wildlife in the area. The main
undesirable air pollutants produced by burning hydrocarbons are nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (Williams 1990).
One of the main sources of fallout for oil burners occurs during transient conditions, particularly shut
down, where air-to-fuel ratios are increased as the oil flow is reduced so much that the mixture becomes
incombustible. Furthermore, it has become the operational standard to leave the air compressors running
for some time after the oil flow is stopped to prevent drips or spills, as current burners do not have a means
to close their nozzles and thereby prevent oil from exiting the burner. While this practice would eliminate
liquid oil spilling from the burner head, it simply atomizes the liquid, and the same amount of oil, or possibly
more, is still introduced into the environment in droplet form. One alternate method of ending a burn is to
pump water through the oil line until the flame is extinguished, the theory being that the water pushes the
oil out, which is burned until the oil is gone, and only water is exiting the burner. In reality, this method
mixes oil and water, and at some point, the mixture becomes incombustible but contains a large quantity of
oil. The volume of hydrocarbon in the line is measured in tens or potentially hundreds of gallons.

Background of the New Burner System

From an environmental standpoint, it is desirable to have efficient, complete combustion of the produced
fluids with minimal smoke or oil fallout. The efficiency of combustion is associated most closely to the
air-to-oil ratio and droplet diameter produced by the nozzles of the well test burner system. Some well test
burner systems have multiple burner nozzles, each sized to produce the proper conditions at a specified
flow rate. Therefore, as the volume of oil changes, the number of burner nozzles used in burning the oil is
adjusted remotely by opening and closing valves internal to the nozzle. To operate the system effectively,
the oil and air flow rate need to be monitored and the number of burner nozzles used adjusted accordingly.

New Burner System

The new oil burner system delivers innovative design/development solutions that reduce the fallout and
environmental risks during well testing; this is possible through the following features:

• Nozzle Control—A unique and innovative nozzle was designed that can precisely control the
flow of oil and air through the burner, allowing the nozzle to be closed without any unburned fuel
escaping. The nozzles are controlled remotely and powered by an integrated pneumatic system,
using the combustion air supply. The system is composed of a regulator, an air amplifier, an
4 IPTC-19734-MS

accumulator tank, pressure safety valve, solenoids for nozzle actuation, and pressure sensors. These
items, working together, allow the system to individually control the position of each nozzle.
• Cross Lighting—The nozzles are vertically arranged with carefully selected overlapping patterns
to allow effective cross lighting of the burner nozzles, regardless of wind conditions. Additionally,
this flame pattern reduces the visible area of flame when observed from the rig, reducing the
severity of radiant heat on the rig.
• Rotation—The rotation system relies on the uni-axis swivel design of the burner main body and
consists of an electric linear actuator. The electric linear actuator is programmed to adjust the angle
of the burner based on the operator's input into the portable remote operator interface (ROI) (touch
screen interface). This enables the burner head to rotate 30° in either direction from the center in
15° increments. This capability to rotate the burner head while in operation is an industry first.
Without this feature, depending on the direction of the wind, it can be necessary to wait or adjust
the rig position by rotating the entire rig before beginning or continuing burning operations. In
Fig. 1, it is possible to identify the vertical arrangement and linear actuator that allow the rotation
of the burner.
• Burner Management System—A built-in programmable logic controller (PLC) contains the logic
and controls for the entire burner control system, such as safe startup of operations, individual
opening or closing of nozzles to adjust flow rates, drip-free shutdowns with the push of a single
button, and rotation of the burner head for changing wind conditions (± 30°).
• Remote Operator Interface—A real-time control system provides oil manifold, air manifold,
and accumulator tank pressure monitoring, audible and visual fault alarms, and safeguards against
unsafe operation. Fig. 2 shows the different displays in the ROI of the burner system.
• Dual Ignition System—A remote ignition and flame detection device with real-time pilot status
indication.
• Combustion Air Use for Pneumatic System—The design of the pneumatic system requires that
the air compressors function before the nozzles can be opened because the air supplied to the control
system is pulled directly from the air manifold. An accumulator tank is fitted to store pressurized
air, sufficient to close the burner completely, in the event that the air supply is lost.
• System Over-temp Safeguards—All systems are thoroughly heat shielded and some are actively
cooled. Additionally, the ROI allows for temperature monitoring.

Figure 1—New burner system.

IPTC-19734-MS 5

Figure 2—Remote control displays.

New Burner Nozzle Design

A piston inside the nozzle is controlled by pneumatic pressure, enabling it to move axially relative to the
nozzle insert which contains the atomization section. By shifting the piston forward, a seal is engaged, and
the flow of oil is stopped at the inlet to the atomization section. As this occurs, air flow is greatly reduced
as the piston shrouds the air inlet orifices of the atomization section. This is effective at reducing fallout
because the amount of oil downstream of the oil seal is minimized and air is allowed to flow through the
atomization section to evacuate all oil from the nozzle while combustion is still occurring. Additionally, the
risk for spills is eliminated because the burner prevents the flow of oil into the atomization section. This
system also allows for nozzles to be opened or closed during operation to allow adjustment to production
rates without stopping the test or to allow operators to alter the air-to-fuel ratio during a burn. Fig. 3 shows
the burner nozzle in the open and closed positions and the air and oil flow as described.

Figure 3—Burner nozzle.

6 IPTC-19734-MS

Burner Qualification Tests and Results

A leading fire science research institute was contracted to conduct full-scale testing, and a recognized third-
party certification authority was witness to the testing. Combustion zone gas sampling and fallout testing
was conducted over a three-week testing period and all the features of the new oil burner were tested and
functioned successfully.

Test Setup
The test setup was similar to a normal land-based well test, with the exception of the added instrumentation.
Fig. 4 shows a simple schematic of the test setup.

Figure 4—Test setup schematic.

Fig. 5 is a photograph from the actual validation test being performed showing some of the
instrumentation used, such as the heat flux meter.

Figure 5—Photograph from the validation test.

Five air compressors provided air to the burner, and each had a nominal capacity of 1600 scfm at 100 psig.
The fuel pump was capable of the maximum expected flow rate of 332 gal/min at 130 psig. The water pump
was capable of the maximum expected flow rate of 225 gal/min at 190 psig. All flow rates were measured
with turbine meters. Temperature was measured using 1/8-in. sheathed Type K thermocouples positioned
upstream from each turbine meter. Pressure was measured using an electronic pressure transducer taken
from a pressure port on each flow meter. A flow conditioner was installed 30 in. upstream of the air flow
meter in accordance with AGA and API standards.
IPTC-19734-MS 7

Four temperature measurements were performed at the burner. A copper disk temperature sensor was
located at the following locations: on the actuator of the burner head, on the surface of the top left side of
the control box, and just above the burner. A 20-ga Type K glass wire thermocouple was used to measure
air temperature within the control box. One heat flux meter was secured just above the burner head near the
copper disk temperature sensor. A second set of a heat flux meter and copper disk temperature sensor was
located on a stand 30 ft east of the burner and was positioned approximately 30° toward the expected flame
path. Both heat flux meters were positioned at the same height. A weather station measured the ambient
temperature as well as wind speed and direction. Measurements taken included flow rates, temperatures,
and pressures of crude oil, water, and air; ambient wind speed and direction; and surrounding temperatures
and heat fluxes. Instrumentation was connected to a dedicated data acquisition system. Fig. 6 shows the
flow meter configuration for both the air and crude oil.

Figure 6—Turbine meter configuration.

Test Discussion
The new burner was tested in the traditional manner for well test oil burners (i.e., to determine fallout) as
well as the manner typically performed for gas flares [to characterize CO2, CO, NOx, and total hydrocarbons
(THC)]. Sampled gas from the combustion zone, Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Flame
Ionization Detection (FID), and chemical analysis were used to determine all of the test results. Emissions
factors were determined from data collected during the fallout efficiency test and the gas sampling test.
Gas was sampled during the test in five locations spaced vertically within the plume from the burner.
The data from the FTIR, FID, and chemical analysis of the gas samples were reported in parts per million
(ppm) (Table 1).

Table 1—Data Collected from the Validation Test.

Sample Point CO (ppm) CO2 (ppm) THC (ppm) NOx (ppm)

1 2 2281.31 18 <1.41
2 1 2749.67 20 <1.41
3 0.5 3274.24 10 <1.41
4 2 3874.07 16 <1.41
5 2 4157.45 16 <1.41

For the fallout efficiency calculation, targets were laid out in a grid beneath the plume. These targets
consisted of cotton-based cloth with aluminum foil backing designed to trap any hydrocarbon fallout.
Samples were packaged immediately after the test for preservation and placed into a cooler at 0°C.
Hydrocarbons were extracted using halogenated solvents and quantified using a gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector. Fallout targets were used to measure background hydrocarbon
8 IPTC-19734-MS

levels. The results were corrected for the average background value, which was 180 µg. The primary source
of background hydrocarbons was from diesel-powered air compressors and pumps, which were up-wind
from the sampling location. Solvent blanks were also analyzed as a quality control measure. There were 26
targets arranged on a 5 x 5 grid, 5 ft on center, with one outlier spaced 130 ft from the center of the array.
During testing, variable wind speed and direction were observed, resulting in the plume being directly
over the fallout collection grid only partially during some of the test duration. This time was recorded
and used to adjust the total amount of hydrocarbon burned in the fallout efficiency equation. To calculate
the quantity of fallout produced during the test, the average concentration of hydrocarbon collected per
target was determined and then doubled. This concentration was then applied over an area with a radius
of approximately 116 ft, extending nearly to the control target, which did not show elevated hydrocarbon
levels. Lastly, because of the effects of wind, the total time that the plume was directly over the targets
was measured and used to reduce the total crude oil burned term in the calculation. The fallout efficiency
calculated was overly conservative to compensate for these uncontrollable factors. Fig. 7 is a photograph
from the validation test while burning 11,142 BOPD with 17% water cut using 3824 scfm air (343 scfm/
thousands of BOPD).

Figure 7—Photograph from the validation test performed with 11,142 BOPD.

Test Results
The new oil burner performed flawlessly when required to shut down all 10 nozzles. No visible unburned
hydrocarbons or drips where observed during the test. The new oil burner system achieved a fallout
efficiency 14.58 times greater than the second best current oil burner in the market. The results shown in
Table 2 for the new burner system are significantly lower than what is used to quantify emissions from gas
flaring during well completions, as assigned in EPA-453/R-11-002 (2011).

Table 2—Test Results.

Parameter Percentage

Fallout efficiency 99.99952%

Combustion efficiency 99.4%
Destruction efficiency 99.5%
CO2 emissions 41 lbm /MMBtu
CO emissions 0.0188 lbm/MMBtu
THCa 0.0822 lbm/MMBtu
NOx emissions 0.0124 lbm/MMBtu

Calculated as methane equivalent.

a
IPTC-19734-MS 9

In Table 2, combustion efficiency is determined by the percentage of carbon converted into CO2 and
destruction efficiency is the percentage of carbon converted into CO2 + CO. THC is measured as ppm and
is listed here as the mass if all particles were methane. Nitrogen oxides are based on a molecular mass of
95% NO and 5% NO2 per AP-42 (1995) guidelines.

Case Histories
First field trial results
The first operation of the new burner system was performed in a well testing offshore job off the coast
of Brazil for a major international oil company (IOC) at the end of 2014. The system demonstrated the
capability to control, monitor, and react to different well conditions. Through varying weather, well, and
flow conditions, the oil burner flowed in excess of 6,700 bbl, eliminating 69.48 liters of fallout. The ability
to monitor burner head data (by means of a ROI console) and remotely operate the burner allowed for
approximately three days without any recorded costly NPT. The total CO2 emissions for the flow period
were calculated, along with the data logs of seven other parameters, providing evidence of superior service.
Fig. 8 shows photographs of the burning operation during this first field test.

Figure 8—Photographs from the first field test of the new burner system offshore.

Success case study in Barents Sea

Overview: A major oil company returned to the Barents Sea to test previously drilled wells as part of a
well test package; the operator was looking for the most modern, environmentally conscious burner on
the market. In particular, was a requirement for a burner with nozzles that could be individually activated
remotely for real-time optimization during flaring operations. The new burner was offered as part of the
package which not only provided smoke-free burns, but also enabled continued testing operations where
traditional burner systems would have needed to be shut down.
Challenge: The Barents Sea's harsh artic conditions of freezing temperatures, ice build-up, and violent
shifting winds present a unique set of challenges for a burner. Uncooperative wind direction can halt a well
test as well as expose a burner to excess heat. Unlike many rigs, the flare booms on the particular rig where
the well test would be conducted are close to a 45° angle with the vessel as opposed to a more common
90° angle orientation. The unusual orientation limits the range of acceptable wind directions for flaring
operations. Another challenge operating in the Barents Sea is the fragile ecosystem. Although the Barents
Sea has seen 20 years of responsible exploration, industry critics continue to maintain a sharp focus on
any incident. To prevent any sheen caused from flaring, efficient combustion and zero fallout are required.
Furthermore, it was required that after flaring operations were completed, all hydrocarbons remaining in
the oil manifold were to be flushed prior to rig down to ensure that no oil fell into the sea.
Solution: In order to address the challenges of the rig's design and the harsh environment and heavily
regulated region, the new oil burner was implemented. This state-of-the-art technology includes many
features particularly beneficial for this application. The burner is capable of rotating off center up to 30°
10 IPTC-19734-MS

which increases the range of wind directions allowable for flaring operations, especially with booms angled
toward the rig. The 10 nozzles on the new oil burner also can be individually activated from the remotely
operated interface for real-time optimization. Because of the unique design of the burner, nozzle plugs can
be installed without opening the oil manifold to the environment, then the nozzles can be opened remotely
enabling purging of the oil manifold by pumping nitrogen down the air line and flushing the oil line back to
a holding tank in the well testing plant. All of these capabilities were critical to the environmental success
of the operation.
Results: The first test for the new oil burner in the Barents Sea was a production test on the gas zone
producing over 500,000 Sm3/day. Several burns of base oil and condensate were performed with the new
oil burner. The new oil burner was capable of real time adjustment to maintain optimal process conditions
for burning. At one point during flaring operations, the wind was blowing directly across the main deck
but the burner's capability to rotate an additional 30° off center kept the test on program, potentially saving
rig time that otherwise would have been spent waiting on a change in wind direction. Once the test was
completed, the post-job flushing of the lines was completed, clearing the lines on the boom before rig down.
Overall, the operator was "very impressed" with the performance of the new oil burner and made plans to
responsibly care for the environment by using it on subsequent wells.
Fig. 9 shows the new oil burner in operation while burning 10,000 bbl/d.

Figure 9—Photograph from the new oil burner system while burning 10,000 bbl/d.

Table 3 shows the 32 jobs performed with the new burner system from December 2014 to January 2018
with 100% success rate without contamination/fallouts. The maximum flow rate burned was 10,000 bpd and
lowest API (at 60°F) of 20. The total eliminated fallout volume, compared with the second most efficient
burner system available in the market, is 2653.22 liters after burning a total of 257,490 bbl of hydrocarbons.
In 60% of the field jobs, the burner was rotated to accommodate wind direction or to improve burning
efficiency. If a different burner system had been used, the burner efficiency would have lessened or, in a
worst case scenario, the operation could have been delayed and the well shut-in until wind direction changed
sufficiently to allow the burning operation.
IPTC-19734-MS 11

Table 3—Field Test Results.

Total Volume Oil API Total Eliminated

Job No. Month-Year Rig Type Rotation
Burned (bbl) (at 15.6°C) Fallout (liter)

1 Dec-2014 Semisubmersible 6,818 38.4 YES 70.71

2 Jan-2015 Semisubmersible 4,016 33.1 NO 41.37
3 Mar-2015 Semisubmersible 6,573 37.0 YES 67.72
4 Apr-2015 Semisubmersible 3,239 48.0 NO 33.37
5 Apr-2015 Semisubmersible 5,683 38.5 YES 58.55
6 Jul-2015 Semisubmersible 14,595 38.7 YES 150.36
7 Aug-2015 Semisubmersible 17,801 42.0 NO 183.39
8 Dec-2015 Drill ship 2,804 26.0 NO 28.89
9 Dec-2015 Semisubmersible 6,826 34.0 YES 70.32
10 Feb-2016 Semisubmersible 17,145 29.0 YES 176.63
11 May-2016 Drill ship 684 35 NO 7.05
12 Aug-2016 Drill ship 8,754 30 NO 90.19
13 Aug-2016 Drill ship 11,997 28.8 NO 123.60
14 Sep-2016 Semisubmersible 267 63.1 YES 2.75
15 Nov-2016 Drill ship 22,002 30 NO 226.68
16 Jan-2017 Drill ship 12,091 30.5 YES 124.56
17 Jan-2017 Drill ship 540 30 YES 5.56
18 Jan-2017 Drill ship 9,798 29.5 YES 100.94
19 Apr-2017 Drill ship 27,184 35 YES 280.06
20 Apr-2017 Drill ship 11,748 20 YES 121.03
21 May-2017 Drill ship 7,009 28.3 YES 72.21
22 Jun-2017 Semisubmersible 670 35 NO 6.90
23 Jul-2017 Semisubmersible 7,122 40.2 YES 73.37
24 Aug-2017 Semisubmersible 2,617 36.3 YES 26.96
25 Sep-2017 Semisubmersible 4,114 38.1 YES 42.38
26 Sep-2017 Semisubmersible 5,816 31.5 YES 59.92
27 Sep-2017 Drill ship 218 45.6 NO 2.24
28 Oct-2017 Drill ship 21,938 28 NO 226.01
29 Nov-2017 Semisubmersible 4,774 39.1 YES 49.18
30 Dec-2017 Drill ship 3,104 30 NO 31.98
31 Jan-2018 Semisubmersible 5,894 36.7 YES 60.72
32 Jan-2018 Semisubmersible 3,649 30 NO 37.59
Total 257,490 2,653.22

Conclusions
The new oil burner system was engineered to pass higher environmental regulations and satisfy
environmental responsibilities. The key features resulted in a more adaptable and reliable product, allowing
the burner to reduce the fallout and environmental impact of burning hydrocarbons and helping operators
meet ever-tightening emissions regulations. By demonstrating its capabilities through witnessed third-party
testing, the new burner system is unique in terms of proven environmental performance.
12 IPTC-19734-MS

Passing rigorous tests and independent validation is one measure of performance, but the burner also was
used successfully in more than 32 offshore well testing operations, eliminating more than 2,653 liters of
fallout if compared with the second most efficient burner in the market. In 60% of operations, the rotation
feature was used to adjust to wind direction and to improve the burning efficiency. The new oil burner
system provides operators with confidence of meeting environment regulations by reducing environmental
risks and fallout during well testing operations and is capable to adjust to the well and weather conditions.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Halliburton for help, permission, and support in developing this
technology and paper. The authors also thank the many operators who allowed this system to be used in
their wells and thus enabled the system to be proven.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

gal × 3.785 412 E - 03 = m3
ft × 3.048* E – 01 = m
in. × 2.54* E + 00 = cm
psi × 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
cP × 1.0* E – 03 = Pa.s
bbl × 1.589 873 E – 01 = m3
gallon × 3.785 41 E – 03 = m3
lbm × 4.535 92 E – 01 = kg
Btu × 1.055 06 E + 03 = J
scfd × 2.831 68 E – 02 = scmd
*Conversion factor is exact

References
EC/R Inc. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production,
Transmission, and Distribution. Rep. no. EPA-453/R-11-002. N.p.: n.p., 2011. Print.
US EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Stationary Point and Area Sources. Rep. no. AP-42. Fifth ed.
Vol. 1. N.p.: n.p., 1995. Print.
Williams, A., Combustion of Liquid Fuel Sprays, Butterworth and Co., Ltd (1990).
Young, T.M., Environmentally Safe Burner for Offshore Well Testing Operations. Presented at the SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 22–24 May 1996. SPE-35687-MS.