QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[earth1]

Strategic AOT implementation options
Identifying known problems in pipelines and deploying AOT strategically to address them


Reply to
Myrka 17446 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111467987
Which refers to Earth 1 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111506943
Moorea9 17447 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111468293
Alkaline solution 17477 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111496623

Thank you Myrka for your comments and to all for their various points. Your understanding of the technical aspects has been apparent in your many detailed posts.

I think the key questions that I could see in 17447 and 17477 were
1. Can a liquid traveling in one part of a pipeline travel at a different velocity to liquid in other parts of the pipeline? Why or why not?
2. Can a partial implementation of AOT increase flow to some degree in a pipeline

Can a liquid traveling in one part of a pipeline travel at a different velocity to liquid in other parts of the pipeline? Why or why not?
• No, oil is effectively incompressible. If we use a train analogy, the last train carriage always goes at exactly the same velocity as the first. In the same way let’s define a slug of oil as the volume of oil contained in 1 mile of pipe. The front slug nearing the terminus is the first carriage and the slug entering the pipeline is the last carriage. These are connected by a series of intervening slugs. It’s physically impossible for the last slug to move faster than any other slug. Otherwise we get a train wreck.
• Changes in velocity cannot occur in just one section of a pipeline.
• We can eliminate the notion that it is possible for a slug of oil to travel faster in one section than another.

Focusing on strategic solutions that address known pipeline problems
The question has been asked "Can a partial implementation of AOT increase flow to some degree in a pipeline"

I think we should be focusing on a different question, but I will try to answer the question.

I think the questions we should focus on are
• What are the key strategic opportunities for AOT?
• What actual problems does AOT solve best and how?
• What deployment of AOT best solves the problem?
• What benefits does that deployment generate?

I’m not a pipeline engineer and am only trying to deduce by logic what problems we can reasonably see that AOT can solve and how. We also don’t know the precise detail of individual pipelines but we certainly know that these are issues of central importance for pipelines

Localised problems
• Bottlenecks
Whole of pipeline problems
• Strategic deployment along pipeline at suitable distances to address issues that affect the pipeline as whole
• Reduce energy consumption, fuel costs and greenhouse emissions and/or
• Increase Flow rate as it effectively determines or caps toll earnings

If it is true that these are major issues then it would seem logical that AOT needs to address these problems on the scale that relates to the specific problem. Solve the localised problem with a localised solution. Solve whole pipeline problems with a whole pipeline solution.

1 Bottlenecks – Reducing elevated friction head loss and power use at localised bottlenecks
The first one is bottlenecks. This is not as we think of traffic where velocity slows down and then speeds back up later. We know that oil is incompressible, that velocity cannot vary along a pipeline, so what is a bottleneck? I’m sure this is an exceedingly complex area, but I believe that a bottle neck is a whole series of undesirable factors like pipe junctions, deposits on the pipeline walls that increase the surface roughness that may trigger turbulence and or create pipe narrowing, altitude changes, temperature changes, turbulence etc... While these create a more complex environment, a key outcome would be increased friction head loss per mile. Whatever other problems pipeline operators have around bottlenecks one of them will certainly be increased friction head loss putting more demand on pumps and triggering the undesirable safety consequence of higher pressure levels at pumping points being required to maintain flow.

Why is AOT relevant here?
• If AOT can be used at bottlenecks, it can decrease friction head loss in that section and decrease the amount of pressure that has to be generated. This creates two environmental benefits improved safety and reduced power consumption for that pump station plus financial savings on fuel.
• Wherever AOT is deployed expressly to relieve bottlenecks on a localised part of a pipeline, it will benefit that part of the pipeline.
If it is implemented on multiple bottlenecks the power savings will be the sum of the localised power savings that arise from those sections where the pumps benefit from AOT reducing friction losses.
• Can this increase flow for the whole pipeline. I think this is a red herring. The problem being focused on here is the high friction loss in the localised section of the pipeline. AOT has the ability to address this problem and if so it has done its job in this context.
• There is no need for it to increase overall pipeline flow because that is not the problem it is being deployed to solve.

2 Partial or fragmented deployment with the hope that it will increase flow overall
Could you POSSIBLY increase overall flow in a pipeline by partial deployment of AOT, say at one or more bottlenecks? I don’t think it’s that important strategically because you are trying to improve the overall performance of an entire pipeline by insisting on a partial implementation. It’s a half-baked non-strategic solution. Why would you want to attempt a half-baked solution when what you should do is review the entire pipeline and model an end to end integration solution? Do it right or not at all.

PS I know this partial implementation question is being raised to understand the nature of the effect not to suggest this is what a pipeline company should actually do.

Technically though, could you? If you don’t want to increase the peak pressures your pipeline is already operating at then I can’t see how. At the end of an AOT section with reduced head loss imagine there is a “No AOT” pump station. That station will have a higher input pressure, a benefit of AOT causing lower friction losses along the previous AOT section. To try to increase flow the non AOT pump station could operate at full power and add its normal pressure increment. Given the higher input pressure (due to AOT on the previous section), the resulting peak pressure could end up higher than it was previously. This might induce higher flow. But the downside is that the “non-AOT” pump station has to run at a higher output pressure than it did before.

So there probably is a convoluted way to get a partial implementation of AOT to induce higher flows but at the risk of higher pressures, which are undesirable on safety grounds. So overall, even if that convoluted approach could achieve higher flow you are running the risk of increasing pressures in non-AOT segments and it’s an illogical way to go about increasing overall pipeline flow. I’m not saying it can’t be done but I am arguing that it’s not a strategic of holistic approach that captures the maximum financial, environmental and safety benefits.

I think it’s more constructive to consider how AOT can be deployed in suitable ways to address known problems in pipelines rather than explore hypothetical uses like partial implementation which is not known to address a specific problem.

3 Strategic deployment along pipeline at suitable distances
Full deployment can cut power use, increase flow or create a combination of both. Each of these scenarios would need to be modelled along with the optimal spacing of AOT. The distance apart is driven by the flow rate, AOT benefit decay pattern over time. You could model this and explore different separation distance options. The maximum benefits model is where you space them closely say 11 hours travel apart. Another is the reduced capex approach of say 24 hours apart. Segments 11 hours apart would have a new AOT often and have the largest reduction in friction head loss. If 24 hours apart, AOT would have major benefits in the first 50% of the segment with reduced but still valuable benefits over the last 12 hours. This costs less money and creates less power savings. This will work whether or not the entire effect is gone by the next pump station.
Interesting here we DO have flexibility about the level of the solution. Both would increase overall pipeline flow rate.
• Close spaced AOT for maximum benefit with the highest capital costs. This still could very well have the highest return on capital as it all depends on benefits per unit of capital
• Widely separated AOT but along the entire pipeline, for lower benefits and lower capex.

Range of pipeline solutions provides flexible deployment options
• There is certainly an optimal “sweet spot” in there and you would need competent modelling and scientific data inputs to work it out.
• Neither the Close not Wide space options could be called a “partial implementation” as they apply to the whole pipeline.
• These options DO mean that it isn’t “All or Nothing”.
• There is considerable flexibility in how AOT is implemented. That may address the reasons behind questions around partial implementation benefits.

Conclusion
There are a range of ways AOT can be deployed on a pipeline depending on the specific needs of the operators, key operational parameters of the pipeline, and whether demand exceeds supply.

These include at least the below
• Locally to solve one or more bottlenecks – Reduce head loss pump power use in one or more localised pipeline sections.
• Close Spaced AOT along entire pipeline for maximum flow increase and/or power and emission savings.
• Widely Spaced AOT along entire pipeline for reduced capex and yet still capturing substantial flow increase and/or power and emission savings.

All the above will produce financial savings and the optimal solution for an individual pipeline will vary. That flexibility gives AOT broad applicability and STWA will play a central role in helping the client identify the optimal solution. By providing valuable advice STWA adds further value to the offering over and above AOT as a standalone product. STWA is not just selling a product but will also be a highly valued partner working with pipeline companies to identify optimal pipeline solutions. This is very good for STWA and for shareholder value.