Posted on 05/31/2013 6:08:32 AM PDT by thackney
“There is a compressor section in the air inlet prior to the ignition chamber.
The fuel gas specifications is VERY clear of how clean and dry it has to be to meet the warranty.”
1)The raw natural gas is introduced as FUEL after the compressor stages.
2) Warranty? These are scrap engines. Of course, you don’t want to abuse them any more than necessary, but the warranty conditions were written by engineers AND lawyers.
I flew a Bell 206 in very remote areas of Africa. I wrote Bell, sending the Shell Oil specs for all their fuels and asking if I could burn Kero in an emergency. Shell Jet A & Kero have the same physical specs, to 3 decimal places. An engineer wrote back, sounding like he had a lawyer looking over his shoulder.
“ASTM 1655 fuel is all that you are allowed to burn.”
BTW, Aerospatiale was allowing diesel in the Turbomecca Arriel engine at the time.
You're right, I wasn't picturing that correctly.
2) Warranty? These are scrap engines
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply a warranty, just a quality of fuel standard from a manufacture.
I recognize the legalize and CYA of such statements. But it was the basis of fuel requirements I can access.
I remember the early turbine pump packages. You didn’t see them around very long.
Maybe something has changed sine then.
You are correct heat cycles (moving the throttle) is one of the main factors in wear. For constant power situations the turbine works well. For higher power applications for their weight turbines are hard to beat, as a Professor once told me, turbines surpassed pistons because of their ability to burn more fuel. The P&W 4360 radial had 4 rows and 28 cylinders and was a maintenence nightmare compared to a turbine. Large diesels are used in applications where weight is less of a factor.
Thanks for the article and thanks to those in the know who responded. I’m getting educated despite myself. :-)
That is why we are here, to learn from each other.
Understood.
There is often a great difference between what WILL work and what MAY be used.
Of course, aircraft use and ground power are two completely different worlds as far as the stringency of requirements.
Great article! Thanks --
I don't see that. The talked about using natural gas or a mix of natural gas with diesel. From the article:
That’s because the shale boom has made natural gas a bargain fuel, and companies believe using it instead of diesel can cut fuel costs by more than 30 percent.
The discussion of dirty fuel was from this in the article:
But if companies had used field gas, burning natural gas tapped directly from wells instead of processing and trucking it to drilling sites
My point was they only talked about the potential savings, not that it was feasible with their current set up.
Were you think the following was referencing LPG?
but only Green Field has done a fracturing job using liquefied natural gas alone
That is not LPG, but LNG. It is methane chilled down to -260°F. Ultra-clean natural gas in a more truckable form.
It takes a heck of a lot more than some mesh to bring raw gas to pipeline quality de-watering requirements.
..............
Seems to me I’ve seen a couple articles on an emergent technology of portable LNG plants that they can wheel up to a well head that’s flaring off gas—& liquify the gas instead.
but if they liquify it —seems to me they’d first have to dewater the natural gas & generally make it production grade.
hmm yeah. it looks like the EPA has taken things a bit further. they have mandated that the oil companies can’t flare off natural gas anymore after early 2015— so the companies are looking to capture the natural gas for their own operations.
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/natural-gas-and-green-completion-in-a-nut-shell/15507/
I think you combining two separate topics. LNG being used for some of the new drilling rigs is being trucked in from other locations.
Creating LNG is a massive operation producing methane of a far higher purity than what comes into our homes. It produces several other byproducts from a typical Natural Gas Pipeline and that is after cleaning up raw gas to pipeline quality.
The flaring at wellhead is a separate issue. At most locations, there are significant limits to how long you can flare. This has become a problem for places like the Bakken which have a low gas to oil ratio. It is not a technical problem but and economic one. Some of these fields produce so little gas that the cost of the infrastructure to put in the gas gathering lines and compression will exceed the value of the gas produced. And you cannot stop the gas flow without stopping the oil flow, where the dollars are made.
Some places like Alaska North Slope still allow the flaring, but charge the oil company royalties on any gas that is not re-injected. The state doesn't care if they flare it, burn it for power & heat or sell it. If the gas comes out of the reservoir and not re-injected to maintain pressure, then it needs to be paid for. I like that method best as it gives more flexibility to the production company while protecting the value of the mineral owner's assets.
Jet engines run in thunder storms at speed.Would be more concerned with acidic component of raw well production.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
