本文選題：生命周期評價(jià) + CML2001　； 參考：《哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國幾大主力油田逐漸進(jìn)入石油開發(fā)的中后期階段,采油過程中隨之產(chǎn)生的油田采出水?dāng)?shù)量也逐漸增多,因此,對油田采出水處理的需求也逐漸增大。油田采出水處理工藝在其建設(shè)期、運(yùn)營期和報(bào)廢期均會產(chǎn)生一定的廢水、廢氣與固體廢物,對環(huán)境產(chǎn)生不利影響,故而在后續(xù)的工程實(shí)踐中如何選擇對環(huán)境更加友好的處理工藝也變得更加重要。不同于傳統(tǒng)評價(jià)方法單一從經(jīng)濟(jì)效益和處理效果的角度去考慮問題,生命周期評價(jià)因?qū)⑵湟暯蔷劢乖谀骋划a(chǎn)品系統(tǒng)所產(chǎn)生的綜合環(huán)境影響上,得到了廣泛的關(guān)注。為了探究不同油田采出水處理工藝的環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷的差異,本文選擇生命周期評價(jià)的方法對針對相同進(jìn)出水標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的兩種常用油田采出水處理工藝的環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷進(jìn)行研究。本文選擇大慶油田中十四污水處理站和中十六污水處理站為研究對象,從不同生命周期階段和不同環(huán)境影響類型兩個(gè)層面比較了兩種工藝在運(yùn)營年限為20年時(shí)的環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷差異,并分析相應(yīng)的原因。最后基于生命周期評價(jià)進(jìn)行了兩種工藝的碳足跡對比分析,為后續(xù)工程實(shí)踐的工藝選擇提出了建議。研究結(jié)果表明,運(yùn)營年限為20年時(shí),中十六污水處理站的全生命周期環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷為中十四污水站的1.29倍,主要原因?yàn)橹惺鬯幚碚具\(yùn)營期產(chǎn)生的環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷為于中十四污水處理站的1.86倍。并且隨著運(yùn)營年限的增加,二者的差值還會繼續(xù)增大。從不同環(huán)境影響類型的角度來考慮,中十四污水處理站在全生命周期內(nèi)對外界環(huán)境影響最大的為人類毒性潛能,為1.25×10-5,占其總環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷的62.00%。中十六污水處理站在全生命周期內(nèi)對外界環(huán)境影響最大的為人類毒性潛能,為1.44×10-5,占其總環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷的55.56%,其他類型的環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷對總體的貢獻(xiàn)均不足20%。從生命周期階段的方面來考慮,在中十四污水處理站的各階段中,對環(huán)境影響最大的為運(yùn)營階段,該階段環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷為1.18×10-5,為其總體環(huán)境影響的58.76%。而對于中十六污水處理站,對環(huán)境影響最大的也是運(yùn)營階段,該階段環(huán)境影響負(fù)荷為2.20×10-5,占其總體環(huán)境影響的84.66%。碳足跡分析結(jié)果表明,中十四污水處理站在建設(shè)階段和報(bào)廢階段產(chǎn)生的碳足跡大于中十六污水處理站,但當(dāng)運(yùn)營年限超過3年時(shí),中十六污水處理站的全生命周期碳足跡便會超過中十四污水處理站。因此,從碳足跡角度考慮,在能滿足處理需求的情況下,在兩種常用的處理工藝中,本文推薦中十四污水處理站采用的“自然沉降—混凝沉降—核桃殼過濾”工藝。本文對于油田采出水處理工藝的可持續(xù)發(fā)展具有重要意義,研究結(jié)果從環(huán)境影響的角度為后續(xù)工程實(shí)踐提供了借鑒。
[Abstract]:With the major oil fields in China gradually entering the middle and late stage of oil development, the amount of produced water produced in the oil production process is also gradually increasing, therefore, the demand for the treatment of produced water in oil fields is also gradually increasing. The treatment process of oilfield produced water will produce certain waste water, waste gas and solid waste during its construction, operation and end-of-life, which will have a negative impact on the environment. Therefore, in the subsequent engineering practice, how to choose a more environmentally friendly treatment process has become more important. Different from the traditional evaluation method which only considers the problem from the angle of economic benefit and treatment effect, life cycle evaluation has been widely concerned by focusing its perspective on the comprehensive environmental impact of a product system. In order to explore the difference of the environmental impact load of different oilfield recovery water treatment processes, this paper chooses the method of life cycle evaluation to study the environmental impact load of two common oilfield production water treatment processes with the same water inlet and outlet standards. In this paper, Zhong14 sewage treatment station and 16 sewage treatment station in Daqing Oilfield are selected as the research objects. The difference of environmental impact load between the two processes with 20 years of operation was compared from two aspects of different life cycle stages and different environmental impact types, and the corresponding reasons were analyzed. Finally, based on the life cycle evaluation, the carbon footprint of the two processes is compared and analyzed, and some suggestions for the process selection of the subsequent engineering practice are put forward. The results show that, when the operating life is 20 years, the whole life cycle environmental impact load of Zhongxi sewage treatment station is 1.29 times of that of Zhong14 sewage treatment station. The main reason is that the environmental impact load of the sewage treatment station is 1.86 times of that of the wastewater treatment station. And with the increase in the number of years of operation, the difference between the two will continue to increase. From the point of view of different environmental impact types, the maximum environmental impact on the environment of Zhong14 sewage treatment Station is human toxicity potential, 1.25 脳 10 ~ (-5), which accounts for 62.00% of the total environmental impact load in the whole life cycle. In the whole life cycle of the sewage treatment station, the human toxicity potential is 1.44 脳 10 ~ (-5), which accounts for 55.56% of the total environmental impact load, and the contribution of other kinds of environmental impact load to the whole environment is less than 20%. From the aspect of life cycle stage, the operation stage is the most important one in each stage of middle 14 sewage treatment station. The environmental impact load of this stage is 1.18 脳 10 ~ (-5), which is 58.7665 of its overall environmental impact. However, the most important environmental impact is the operation stage, which is 2.20 脳 10 ~ (-5), which accounts for 84.66% of the total environmental impact. The results of carbon footprint analysis show that the carbon footprint produced by the sewage treatment station of No. 14 is larger than that of the sewage treatment station at the stage of construction and abandonment, but when the operating life is longer than 3 years, The full life cycle carbon footprint of the Secondary 16 sewage treatment Station will exceed that of the Secondary 14 sewage treatment Station. Therefore, considering from the point of view of carbon footprint, under the condition that can meet the needs of treatment, in the two common treatment processes, this paper recommends the process of "natural sedimentation-coagulation sedimentation-walnut shell filtration" adopted in the wastewater treatment station of No. 14. This paper is of great significance for the sustainable development of oilfield recovery water treatment process, and the research results provide a reference for the subsequent engineering practice from the point of view of environmental impact.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：X741;X82

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 楊開忠,楊詠,陳潔;生態(tài)足跡分析理論與方法[J];地球科學(xué)進(jìn)展;2000年06期

2 吳敏,楊健;普通生物濾池處理工藝的生命周期能耗分析[J];中國給水排水;2001年06期

3 王學(xué)佳;皮文清;李昂;;微生物處理油田采出水技術(shù)應(yīng)用[J];中國給水排水;2015年02期

4 齊薇;;油田小型站場采出水處理工程改造的幾點(diǎn)探討[J];工業(yè)用水與廢水;2014年01期

5 曹華林;產(chǎn)品生命周期評價(jià)(LCA)的理論及方法研究[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2004年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吉倩倩;生命周期評價(jià)在城市污水處理的環(huán)境效益分析中的應(yīng)用[D];西安建筑科技大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1966121