Michele Margarone

Stefano Magi
EniExploration and Production,
San Donato Milanese (Mi) 20097, Italy

Giuseppe Gorla
Stefano Biffi
Paolo Siboni
Tecnomare,
Milano 20139, Italy

Gianluca Valenti
Matteo C. Romano
Antonio Giuffrida
Emanuele Negri
Ennio Macchi

Revamping, Energy Efficiency,

and Exergy Analysis of an
Existing Upstream Gas Treatment
Facility
Surface oil and gas treatment facilities in service for decades are likely to be oversized
due to the natural depletion of their reservoirs. Despite these plants might have been
designed modularly, meaning they comprise multiple identical units serving the same
task, such units operate often in conditions far from the design. This work analyzes the
revamping options of an existing upstream gas facility, chosen because representative of
a wide set of plants. It presents a flexible process simulation model, implemented in the
HYSYS environment and dynamically linked to an Excel spreadsheet, which includes the
performance maps of all turbomachineries and the main characteristics of the investigated modifications. The model may be used to run simulations for various gas input
conditions and to predict the performance over 1 year of operation and for different
possible future scenarios. The first objective is to assess economically the considered
options, which shall be applied only if yielding short return times of the investment since
the reservoir is mature. Moreover, all options are appreciated adopting a figure of merit,
here defined, that compares the overall energy consumption to the one calculated with
state-of-the-art technologies. In addition, exergy and environmental analyses are
executed. DOI: 10.1115/1.4003627

Politecnico di Milano,
Milano 20156, Italy

Introduction

Global demand for energy from hydrocarbons is growing all

over the world and it will remain fundamental for the economic
growth at least in the short- and midterm future. However, new
discoveries become progressively more and more difficult due to
the extreme conditions that need to be faced, such as ultradeep
waters or arctic environments. Existing reservoirs will continue to
provide a major quantity of oil and gas and, thus, they will have to
be managed effectively. In this framework, energy efficiency in
the up- and midstream industries is a suitable way to support
production while reducing both greenhouse gas GHG emissions
and energy costs, the latter defined as the onsite consumption
compared with the plant production, as explained by Svalheim
and King 1. Major companies have been involved for several
decades in finding technologies to improve the efficiency. A useful
outlook of different strategies and applications in the oil industry
can be found in Ref. 2 based on a work of the International
Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. The
paper delivers a comparison among different environmental programs of a number of companies e.g., ExxonMobil, Irving, TX
and Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and for a variety of applications Athabasca Oil Sands Project, Hydros Sture Oil Terminal,
Mongstad Refinery, Flaring Project of Nigerias Shell Petroleum
Development Co., and Agip, now Eni E&P. It is often overlooked
that the oil and gas industry is a major consumer of energy, with a
global consumption of 600 Mtoe in 2004 3.
New rules by governments and recent quests to mitigate the
climate change have driven the oil companies to take the chalContributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 8,
2010; final manuscript received February 3, 2011; published online March 15, 2011.
Assoc. Editor: Andrea Lazzaretto.

lenge. In the production area, recent initiatives have increased the

cogeneration of power and steam, the use of more efficient pumps
and compressors, as well as more advanced electric motors. The
evaluation of the effectiveness of undergone actions requires an
accurate analysis of field operations. In the recent past several
authors have estimated GHG emissions from diverse sources
within the oil and gas industry venting, flaring, burning, and
transporting, such as Edwards 4 and Nordrum et al. 5 in 2004,
or Cain and Mingst 6 and Veerkaamp and Heidug 7 shortly
later.
Among all the actions the industrial operators can take, energy
recovery from waste heat is one of the most valuable. Produced
gas is normally used to run turbines and boilers so that electricity
and heat are self-generated. Frequently, turbocompressors are employed to increase the pressure of gas from mature fields; however, the turbines driving those compressors operate most of the
times in an open cycle without heat recovery. Kloster explained in
two works, Refs. 8,9, that combined cycle gas turbines CCGTs
are the most important alternative to simple cycle gas turbine
SCGT for offshore applications in Norway to cut fuel costs and
GHG emissions.
Typically waste heat from the exhausts of gas turbines or industrial heaters is available at low temperature. In this situation,
its exploitation can be carried out by an organic rankine cycle
ORC, a technology extensively used in other sectors, such as
biomass combustion heat recovery, geothermal plants, and solar
desalinization see, for instance, Ref. 10. The type of the working fluid is a free parameter and is chosen via thermodynamic
considerations; nevertheless, the resulting electric efficiency is
normally lower than 25%. An interesting review on this topic is
provided by Dai et al. 11.
In this paper a study of the energy efficiency in a gas treatment
plant in which turbocompressors are employed to increase the

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright 2011 by ASME

MARCH 2011, Vol. 133 / 012001-1

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 1 Stream information for the four gas pipelines currently in operation converging to one of the three plant inlets
depending on the gas pressure. Roughly 2% of the inlet gas is
used as fuel gas within the plant.
Pipeline No.

Plant inlet

Flow
kSm3 / day

Pressure
bar

Temperature
C

1
2
3
4

LP
IP
HP
HP

210220
15003000
230270
2535

810
2224
5560
6070

2025
1520
2025
2025

Table 2 Mechanical-drive gas turbines at the plant

Parameter
Operational units:
installed
currently in operation
Type
On-design capacity
On-design efficiency

2
pressure of the gas streams from depleted reservoirs is presented.
At first, a brief description of the plant layout and of its working
conditions is given, and then the criticalities and the modifications
are outlined. The simulation of the process is depicted in a dedicate section, including a validation against field data. The discussion of the proposed solutions is based on the first and the second
laws of thermodynamics as well as on economic and environmental comparisons.
This paper is a description of the first phase of a field project
conducted by Eni, Tecnomare, and Politecnico di Milano. The
main goals of the project are the development of an internal standardized procedure for i revamping existing oil and gas treatment facilities and ii providing the operators of those facilities
with tools for taking on-time decisions. In this phase, the revamping options of a gas facility are investigated. In a second phase,
those of an oil facility are instead investigated. According to the
gained experience, the internal procedure is prepared afterwards.
In the last optional phase, the developed process simulation tools
are transferred to the analyzed gas and oil facilities for the on-line
modeling by the acquisition of field data. Eni, a major Italian oil
and gas company, is the owner of the plants and the project leader.
As the leader, Eni coordinated the work and managed the information flow. Tecnomare is an engineering company within the Eni
group that executed the process simulation and contacted the suppliers for technoeconomical offers. Politecnico di Milano is a
technical university that developed the methodology for the analysis, defined the modifications, and consulted Tecnomare in detailing the simulation.

#gas Grid

H.P. wells

Unit

LP-IP
gas turbine

IP-HP
gas turbine

kW
%

2
1
Simple cycle
1185
24.4

4
12
Recuperative
5180
34.7

Current Plant Layout

The gas treatment facility here analyzed was built in the late
1960s and modified 2 decades ago. It processes natural gas from a
number of fields connected via six pipelines. Currently only four
pipelines are in operation and their flow rates are much lower than
originally. Pipelines differ for pressures and rates see Table 1,
whereas temperatures and compositions are quite similar
15 25 C and basically pure methane saturated with water. The
flow rates of pipelines numbered 1, 3, and 4 are dictated by the
reservoir behaviors and are relatively constant over time. In contrast, the rate of Pipeline 2, by far the most relevant, is established
by marketing decisions and it falls in a wide interval, even though
most of the year it varies in a narrow window. Depending on their
pressures, the pipelines are converged to one of the three plant
inlet lines, identified as low pressure LP 810 bars, intermediate pressure IP 2224 bars, and high pressure HP line 5570
bars. The plant has a single outlet pipeline, which is connected to
the national gas network Fig. 1. Within the plant, roughly 2% of
the inlet gas is used as fuel gas.
Given the high quality of the inlet natural gas, the facility accomplishes two tasks: i pressurizing the LP and IP streams to an
outlet condition of 5070 bars and ii dehydrating all the streams
to a dew point of 10 C. Compression is obtained via turbomachines, dehydration via triethylene glycol TEG regenerated with
direct fuel gas burners. All compressors are equipped with aircoolers at their outlets. The plant accommodates two low-tointermediate pressure compressors identified with LP-IP and
four intermediate-to-high pressure compressors IP-HP, each
driven by a dedicated gas turbine see Table 2. The LP-IP tur-

50-60 bar

Exhaust

Dehydration
Unit

60-70 bar

Exhaust

#el
Fuel
Glycol
Regeneration
Unit

I.P. wells

22-24 bar

Fuel

L.P. wells
IN & OUT

Exhaust

Fuel Exhaust

Fuel Exhaust

Fuel

Fuel

Water
Heater

Incinerator

Exhaust

Water
Disposal

8-10 bar

GAS COMPRESSION

PROCESS

DISPOSAL

Fig. 1 Schematic layout of the current gas treatment plant

012001-2 / Vol. 133, MARCH 2011

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 3 Yearly average use of fuel gas within the plant

User

Quantity
kSm3 / day

Table 4 Current operating conditions of a single IP-HP turbine, as a function of the flow rate of the intermediate pressure
line, estimated from the performance maps
Intermediate pressure inlet

LP-IP turbine
IP-HP turbine
Other usersa
a

6.600
40.362
3.648

Reboilers, water heater, and incinerator.

bines are simple cycle, whereas the IP-HP are recuperative having
the recuperator placed within the exhaust stack. All the six gas
turbines have dedicated stacks. The dehydration station accommodates four absorption and two regeneration columns. Because of
the current low flow rates, just one LP-IP and one or two IP-HP
compressors are operated at one time, as well as a single absorption and a single regeneration column. Finally, a water heater and
an incinerator, both powered by fuel gas, are installed. Table 3
reports the yearly average uses of fuel gas.

Revamped Plant Layouts

Despite the LP-IP compressors run in an efficient area of their

map with a measured efficiency decay of 5% with respect to
mapped values, the respective gas turbines are characterized by a
very low operating performance because the demanded power is
substantially lower than the design conditions yielding an operation point not even visualized on the maps. In any case, even
under design conditions, the turbine efficiency is quite low 24.5%
as reported in Table 2. Thus, the first modification option is the
replacement of one of the LP-IP gas turbines with an internal
combustion reciprocating engine or an electric motor EM
equipped with a variable-frequency drive VFD, while the other
turbine remains as backup. The EM alternative induces a reduction in fuel gas consumption and GHG emission even considering the electric power generation yet an increase in the electric
bill. Moreover, an electric motor performs under widely variable
loads better than a reciprocating engine. Thus, the electric motor
is preferred over the reciprocating engine, which is so excluded
from the numerical assessment.
Both IP-HP compressors and turbines operate in an efficient
region, with a measured 510% decay of their efficiency with
respect to maps. Considering the relevant energy content of the
exhaust gas from the gas turbines, although recuperative, a simple
one-pressure-level nonregenerative steam cycle SC or, alternatively, an ORC, both for sole power generation, may be installed.
The cogenerative setups are not taken into account because either
cycle, if adopted, shall remain flexible and independent. Furthermore, the bottoming cycle, if capable of operating as stand-alone
in opposition to just parallel to the grid, can solve the electric
supply interruptions that are frequent at the treatment plant. From
this perspective, the ORC is slightly less favorable because it
requires that the load changes at a moderate rate. However, the
installation of the ORC is simpler because it is a self-contained
and self-controlled package. Referring to typical ORC machines,
the stack gas can be cooled from 360 C down to around 160 C.
Thus, referring to the performance maps, the thermal power entering the ORC ranges between 3700 kW and 5400 kW Table 4,
depending on the load on the turbine that varies according to the
gas flow rate entering the IP wells line. Given common electric
efficiency, the ORC power generation can be rated between 650
kW and 1000 kW.
Since the exhaust gas from the incinerator is characterized by
high energy content, a heat exchanger may be placed at the incinerator outlet in order to heat water and displace the thermal demand on the existing heater.
The heat recovery from IP-HP turbines requires taking a few
design choices. At first, the number of turbines each having a
dedicated stack incorporating the recuperator as explained earlier
Journal of Energy Resources Technology

Parameter

Unit

Minimum
flow

Typical
flow

Maximum
flow

Compression power
Current efficiency
Inlet fuel w/r/t LHV
Heat recovery to 160 C

kW
%
kW
kW

3105
32.9
9436
3704

4,455
35.2
12,638
4,788

5,137
35.6
14,425
5,434

need to be retrofitted. In particular, one turbine is not to be modified because it can be operated when the bottoming cycle, either
steam or organic, is off-line. Moreover, the position of the heat
exchangers is either as many exchangers as the number of retrofitted turbines positioned on the top of their stacks an option
readily available from the manufacturer or a single on-ground
exchanger where the exhausts are ducted to. The heat recovery
may be executed directly with the working fluid of the bottoming
cycle or indirectly with a diathermic oil circuit that feeds the
bottoming cycle. In the latter case, the recovery from the incinerator could be connected to that circuit.
The heat recovery to meet the loads of the dehydration station
cannot be considered because, on one hand, the reboilers are of
the direct-flame type and, on the other, there is not a steam circuit
in the plant.
All the revamped layouts investigated include the recovery on
the incinerator indicated with INC. Furthermore, i one employs
the substitution of the LP-IP turbine with the electric motor layout named INC+ EM and visualized in Fig. 2; ii the second, in
addition to the modifications of the previous one, includes the
organic cycle INC+ EM+ ORC, Fig. 3; and iii the last, opposed
to the latter, comprise the steam cycle INC+ EM+ SC, Fig. 4.

Process Simulation

The treatment facility is simulated in HYSYS 2006.5, commercial

software by Aspen Tech, Burlington, MA, to evaluate the performance of the current and of the revamped configurations. The
process simulation model comprises the compression sections, the
dehydration station, the fuel gas uses and all the modifications that
may be selectively activated by the user via flags defined in a
HYSYS spreadsheet component. In other words, a single file
contains all the options. Such file is linked dynamically to an
Excel spreadsheet to postprocess the results. The following paragraphs describe the procedural details, many of which are meant
for the readers familiar with HYSYS.
4.1 Working Fluids. For thermodynamic purposes, the model
is divided into two sections: i One contains the bulk of the plant
and employs the PengRobinson model 12, while ii the other
covers exclusively the dehydration station and utilizes the glycol
package by Twu et al. 13. The interface between the two sections is made through cutter components imposing equal pressure and temperature to the connected streams.
4.2 Compressors and Turbines. Only one LP-IP compressorturbine package and one IP-HP package are implemented. However, given that two IP-HPs may be working simultaneously when
the IP pipeline stream reaches high flow rates, the implemented
package is virtually duplicated: If two IP-HPs are online, the gas
flow is equally split into two streams and one package is simulated while the computed fuel gas consumption is doubled. Performance curves of compressors are digitalized and inserted in
HYSYS rating to evaluate speeds and powers. The compressor
efficiencies are reduced by 5% to represent actual decay. Turbines
are not available as built-in components, so fuel gas and air consumptions are computed via spreadsheets. Since LP-IP turbines
MARCH 2011, Vol. 133 / 012001-3

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

#gas Grid

H.P. wells

50-60 bar

Dehydration
Unit

60-70 bar

Exhaust

#el

Exhaust

Aero-condenser

Heat
Recovery
Steam
Generator

Fuel

Exhaust

Glycol
Regeneration
Unit

Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater

Fuel Exhaust

Fuel

Fuel
Incinerator

I.P. wells

22-24 bar
VFD

~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT

M
Water
Disposal

8-10 bar

PROCESS

GAS COMPRESSION

DISPOSAL

Fig. 2 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator and ii the electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine
layout named INC+ EM

operate in a condition not even included in their map, their efficiency is simply calculated through a linear interpolation, as a
function of power, between the current measured value and the
design one. IP-HP turbines are treated in a more articulated manner, hereafter illustrated. Two data sets are obtained from the maps
reporting, respectively, the power and the efficiency both as a
function of the rotation speed for a number of air flow rates. More
precisely, efficiencies and flows are defined as a ratio of their
nominal values, as provided by the manufacturer, and are so referred to as air design percentage and efficiency factor see

#gas Grid

H.P. wells

Figs. 5 and 6. The two data sets from the maps are then interpolated with two sets of cubic polynomials. For a given rotation
speed and mechanical power for the compressor, which depends
on the compressed flow rate and the pressure ratio, the air flow
rate of the gas turbine is determined by linear interpolation between two adjacent polynomials from the first set of polynomials
Fig. 5; calculated the air flow and given the rotation speed, the
gas turbine efficiency is determined by linear interpolation between the two adjacent polynomials from the second set of polynomials Fig. 6.

50-60 bar

Dehydration
Unit

60-70 bar

Exhaust

#el

Exhaust

Aero-condenser

Organic Steam
Generator

Fuel

Exhaust

Diathermic oil
Heat Recovery

Glycol
Regeneration
Unit

Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater

Fuel Exhaust

Fuel

Fuel
Incinerator

I.P. wells

22-24 bar
VFD

~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT

M
Water
Disposal

8-10 bar

GAS COMPRESSION

PROCESS

DISPOSAL

Fig. 3 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator, ii electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine, and
iii the bottoming Organic Rankine Cycle INC+ EM+ ORC

012001-4 / Vol. 133, MARCH 2011

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

#gas Grid

H.P. wells

50-60 bar

Exhaust

Dehydration
Unit

60-70 bar

#el

Fuel Exhaust

Fuel

Exhaust

Glycol
Regeneration
Unit

Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater

Fuel Exhaust
Fuel

I.P. wells

Incinerator

22-24 bar

VFD

~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT

M
Water
Disposal

8-10 bar

PROCESS

GAS COMPRESSION

DISPOSAL

Fig. 4 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator, ii the electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine,
and iii the bottoming simple steam Rankine cycle INC+ EM+ SC

4.3 Dehydration Station and Incinerator. Similarly to the

turbomachines, one dehydration column and one regeneration column are implemented. Design parameters and operating conditions are taken from the original documentation and from the distributed control system.
4.4 Modifications. The substitution of the LP-IP turbine with
an electric motor is modeled with spreadsheets computing size,
efficiency, and fuel gas savings. The main equipment of the steam
cycle are included as HYSYS components, whereas the ORC is
described via spreadsheets, one of which determines the recoverable heat from the IP-HP turbine exhausts, and the other determines the electric output selecting the most appropriate model
from the technical catalog of an ORC manufacturer that is implemented in the model. A spreadsheet is adopted to evaluate the heat
recoverable from the incinerator exhaust, the production of hot
water, and the substitution of the load on the installed water
heater. In particular, if the recovery is lower than required a situation that occurs very unlikely the gas rate to the incinerator is
increased by the necessary factor.

Results and Discussion

The simulation of the current and revamped layouts is here

conducted and reported for a single working condition, which is
the typical flow rate of Pipeline 2 all others are almost constant

1.10

95% Air design

85% Air design
75% Air design

1.05

5000

4000

100% Air design

90% Air design
80% Air design
71% Air design

95% Air design

85% Air design
75% Air design

1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85

3000

2000
4000

Efficiency factor

Output power [kW]

6000

100% Air design

90% Air design
80% Air design
71% Air design

4.5 Validation. The validation of the model developed for the

current layout is conducted against the measured field data, such
as flow rates, rotation speeds, temperatures, and pressures at the
suction and discharge of the compressors, as well as fuel consumption of the turbines. Table 5 shows that the simulated parameters and the field data of the specific day taken as example are in
an acceptable, yet not remarkable, agreement, leading so to an
uncertainty on the numerical results. Among all parameters, fuel
gas consumption is the one most influencing the economic analysis. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis is conducted on it and reported later on. The fuel gas consumption of the reboiler in the
dehydration station from the simulation cannot be validated because the actual flow is not measured.

6000
8000
10000
Rotation speed [rpm]

12000

Fig. 5 IP-HP gas turbine digitalized map reporting the output

power kW as a function of the rotation speed rpm for a number of air flow rates defined as a ratio with respect to the nominal flow rate

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

0.80
4000

6000
8000
10000
Rotation speed [rpm]

12000

Fig. 6 IP-HP gas turbine digitalized map reporting the efficiency factor nondimensional defined with respect to the
nominal efficiency as a function of the rotation speed rpm for
a number of air flow rates defined as a ratio with respect to the
design efficiency

MARCH 2011, Vol. 133 / 012001-5

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 5 Comparison of field data and model results for the LP-IP compressor-turbine package
and the IP-HP package for the working condition of a specific day taken as an example
LP-IP machine
Parameter
Discharge temperature
Rotation speed
Fuel consumption

Unit

Field

Model

Field

Model

C
rpm
kSm3 / day

117.1
18,943
6.470

122.4
19,750
6.760

117.0
10,684
40.400

105.2
10,790
37.000

throughout the year, as indicated previously. Such typical condition is only slightly different from the yearly average and the day
adopted in the validation.
5.1 Energy Analysis. The main results of the mass and energy balances are reported in Table 6. In the current layout,
1927 Sm3 / h of fuel gas are used within the gas treatment facility,
most of which 79% are burned in the IP-HP turbine. In all the
proposed modified layouts, LP-IP turbine is replaced with an electric motor and hence the consumption of 275 Sm3 / h can be
avoided. On the other side, an electric consumption of 394 kW is
introduced.
The other change for all the modified layouts is the introduction
of a heat recovery on the incinerator fuel gas, to produce hot
water. With this modification, 45 Sm3 / h currently used can be
also saved. A secondary effect deriving from these two modifications is a modest increase in the fuel gas for the IP-HP compression due to the increased rate to be compressed.
The study on the bottoming cycles shows that 865 kW and 657
kW can be produced by means of the ORC and of the SC, respectively. Electricity generated is more than needed for EM and net
exports of 471 kW and 263 kW can be obtained.
In order to evaluate the energy performance of upstream facilities, the energy index EI is usually adopted in the oil and gas
industry. For the gas treatment facility here analyzed, this index is
the ratio between the heat flow associated with the mass flow G
and the LHV of a stream exiting the plant as the natural gas
delivered to the national grid and the heat flow entering the plant
as the sum of the natural gas of all pipelines as follows:
EI =

Gout LHVout

in,k

LHVin,k

By means of the modifications proposed, EI increases from

98.6% to 98.9% i.e., losses are reduced from 1.4% to 1.1% as a
consequence of the reduced fuel gas consumption. However, such
index does not provide information about the quality of the processes running in the facility and, consequently, it should be used
Table 6 Main results of the energy analysis for the current and
the revamped layouts for the typical working condition note
that fuel gas is expressed in an hour-basis
Parameter,
unit

LP-IP turbine
IP-HP turbine
Other users
Total

Current
layout INC+ EM INC+ EM+ ORC INC+ EM+ SC

275
1521
131
1927

Fuel gas, Sm3 / h

0
0
1526
1526
86
86
1612
1612

0
1526
86
1612

Electricity variation with respect to the current layout, kW

Production
0
865
657
Consumption +
394
394
394
Net consumption
+394
471
263
Energy index % 98.62
98.91
98.91
98.91
BAT %
48.04
57.49
65.40
63.25

012001-6 / Vol. 133, MARCH 2011

IP-HP machine

very carefully when evaluating and comparing the performance of

different plants. As a matter of fact, EI does not consider i the
pressure ratio needed for the gas compression, ii the processes
required for the gas treatment e.g., sweetening and/or dehydration, and iii the electricity production and/or consumption thus,
for instance, no difference can be observed among the revamped
layouts.
For these reasons a new index is here proposed to better evaluate the quality of the revamped options. This new index compares
the plant performance against that obtainable with the adoption of
the best available technologies BATs for all processes. Hence,
the BAT efficiency BAT, shown in Eq. 2, is defined as the
ratio between the equivalent fuel energy needed to treat all the
inlet gas flows by employing state-of-the-art technologies EBAT
and the equivalent fuel energy required by the current or revamped layouts E. The value of EBAT is calculated as the sum of
two contributions to the equivalent fuel energy requirement: i
that for gas compression, calculated as the electric power
Pcomp,BAT in an optimal compression train divided by a fuel-toelectricity conversion reference efficiency e,ref, and ii that for
gas treatment Etr with state-of-the-art physical-chemical processes
here only a dehydration TEG unit is present. The optimal compression train is composed of intercooled compressors with equal
pressure ratio, 85% isentropic efficiency, and the minimum number of intercoolers leading to discharge temperatures lower than
100 C. Moreover, the fuel-to-electricity conversion reference efficiency is taken to be equal to 52% referring to CCGT. Similarly,
the actual energy consumption E takes into account both the energy consumption associated with the natural gas enthalpy fluxes
and the equivalent fuel consumption or saving Pel associated with
the electricity net consumption or production Pel is negative in
case of power net production, i.e., in case of export to the grid.
Enthalpy fluxes take into account both the chemical contribution
associated with the streams LHV and the physical contribution
h, calculated by setting equal to zero the enthalpy at reference
conditions 1 bar, 25 C.
Pcomp,BAT

BAT =

e,ref

in,kLHVin,k

+ Etr,BAT

+ hin,k GoutLHVout + hout +

Pel

e,ref
2

The BAT efficiency of the current layout is 48%, indicating that

in current conditions the consumption of primary energy is more
than double that for state-of-the-art processes. With the proposed
modifications, the improvements are noticeable, since BAT increases to 57.5% for INC+ EM and up to 65.4% and 63.2% for
INC+ EM+ ORC and INC+ EM+ SC, respectively.
5.2 Exergy Analysis. The indices defined in the previous
paragraph can be useful to evaluate the overall performance of a
gas treatment facility. However, they do not provide information
about the quality of the single processes and its share on the
overall energy performance 14. This information can be obtained by means of a second law analysis. The results of the calculations are reported for INC+ EM+ ORC, take as example in
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 7 Exergy losses from the gas treatment facility processes, in the current and in the
INC+ EM+ ORC layout
Current layout

Difference

kW

kW

kW

2,862
10,240
375
727
797
15,001

19.1
68.3
2.5
4.8
5.3
100

1,003
9,375
375
478
0
11,231

8.9
83.5
3.3
4.3
0.0
100

1859
865
0
249
797
3770

65.0
8.4
0.0
34.3
100
25.1

Table 7.
In the current layout, most of the exergy losses are associated
with the compression stations. These are mainly due to the losses
in the combustion turbines, where fuel gas combustion and fuel
gas heat discharge to the environment are responsible of high
losses. Of the IP-HP compression process losses, 84% are due to
the combustion turbine, 10% to gas compression and 6% to natural gas after-cooling. As to the LP-IP compression station, 93% of
the losses are associated with the turbine as a consequence of its
low efficiency.
Other important losses are due to the incinerator and to water
heating, where fuel calorific value is entirely released to the environment or used to generate low temperature water. In particular,
as far as the incinerator is concerned, 52% of the exergy losses are
associated with the high temperature at the stack and the remaining part is due to the combustion.
The positive effects of the modified layouts are clear from Table
7. The replacement of the LP-IP turbine with the electric motor
allows for a reduction of 65% of the exergy losses, calculated by
taking into account the losses related to the electricity generation
in a state-of-the-art natural gas-fired combined cycle assumed
exergy efficiency of the combined cycle is 50%. In this modification, the share of the losses associated with the gas compressor
driving, that is due to power generation and electrical-tomechanical conversion, is equal to 78%, which is to be compared
with the 93% of the current layout.
The second highest absolute enhancement is related to the
IP-HP compression unit. The installation of an ORC allows reducing exergy losses by 8.4%. Large benefits can also be obtained by
introducing the heat recovery water heater on the incinerator, permitting both to limit losses from the incinerator itself and to completely avoid the losses from the existing water heater, which can
be shut down.
On the whole, by adopting the selected modified layout INC
+ EM+ ORC, exergy losses of the entire gas facility can be reduced by 25.1%, a significant result that fully justifies the proposed modifications also from the second law standpoint.
5.3 Economic and Environmental Analyses. The project
value is estimated via a discounted cash flow. The capital cost of
investment of any revamped layout is equal to the sum of engineering, installation, permitting, project management, and equipment. Live costs are the sum of fuel, maintenance, and personnel.
Costs of all the required components, as well as ordinary and
extraordinary maintenance, are derived from the contact with the
manufacturers. For confidentiality reasons, all these costs cannot
be disclosed. Availabilities of the electric motor and of the ORC
are taken to be 98% and 95%, respectively. The incinerator is
assumed to be always on line. None of the modifications requires
additional personnel. The variations for the revamped layouts
compared with the current are i the EM electric consumption,
ii the onsite electricity production, iii the fuel gas saving, and
iv the GHG emissions. The time span of the investment is only
10 years given that the field is mature. Three scenarios are assessed: i a base case, ii an increased purchasing price of elecJournal of Energy Resources Technology

tricity, and iii an increased CO2 allowance Table 8. The selling

price of natural gas, as well as of electricity, and the weighted
average cost of capital WACC are maintained constant. The effects on the economics of WACC and of the fuel gas consumption
are reported only for INC+ EM+ ORC.
The shortest payback time of all the scenarios that is, about 2.5
years! is achieved by the INC+ EM layout Fig. 7. The layout
with the ORC yields always interesting return times whereas that
with the SC is the least viable. The electricity purchasing cost has
a major effect: A 50% increase in the cost involves roughly a 90%
increase in the payback time for the case with additional electric
use from 2.5 years to 4.7 years and a 1516% reduction for the
cases with electric generation from 6.2 to 5.2 for INC+ EM
+ ORC and from 8.0 to 6.8 for INC+ EM+ SC. Symmetrically, the
profitability index reduces by about 63% for INC+ EM and increases by 56% and 80% for INC+ EM+ ORC and INC+ EM
+ SC, respectively Fig. 8.
The carbon dioxide allowance has a weaker effect on the economics. For instance, a 50% increase in carbon allowance cost
involves approximately a 58% reduction in the payback time
Fig. 7 as well as a 730% increase in the profitability index Fig.
8.
The profitability index is strongly affected by the WACC Fig.
9. However, as long as the index is positive, the project creates
value with respect to the investment. For the INC+ EM+ ORC

Table 8 Scenarios assessed in the economic analysis

Parameter
WACC
Electricity:
Sold
Purchased
CO2 allowance

Unit

Scenario base

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

10

10

10

/MWh
/MWh
/ tCO2

60
100
13

60
150
13

60
100
20

9
Scenario base

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

8
7
Payback time [years]

LP-IP compression
IP-HP compression
Dehydration
Incinerator
Water heater
Entire plant

INC+ EM+ ORC

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
INC+EM

INC+EM+ORC

INC+EM+SC

Fig. 7 Payback time of the three revamped layouts for the assessed scenarios base case, increased purchasing cost of
electricity, and increased CO2 allowance

MARCH 2011, Vol. 133 / 012001-7

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

2.5

Scenario base

Scenario 2

35

Scenario 3

30
CO2 emission [kt/year]

Profitability Index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

25
20
15
10
5
0

0.0
INC+EM

INC+EM+ORC

INC+EM+SC

Fig. 8 Profitability index of the revamped layouts for the assessed scenarios base case, increased purchasing cost of
electricity, and increased CO2 allowance

layout, the breakeven point is for a WACC as high as 18%.

The effect of the fuel consumption by the gas turbines on the
economics is also investigated. The results regarding INC+ EM
+ ORC in the base scenario are reported here. The reduction of 5%
of the fuel consumption reduces the payback time by 1.0 years,
from 6.2 years to 5.2 years, and increases the profitability index
by 0.1865, from 0.3722 to 0.5587. In contrast, the increase of 5%
of the fuel consumption increases the payback time by 1.5 year, to
7.7 years, and reduces the profitability index by 0.1864, to 0.1858.
In the environmental analysis, both direct and indirect CO2
emissions are accounted for. The indirect generation for electricity
use is taken to be 0.459tCO2 / MWh, with reference with a generation park based on a mix of fossil fuels. The substitution of the
LP-IP turbine with EM involves an appreciable reduction in terms
of CO2 emissions because of the low efficiency at the operating
loads. The electricity production in INC+ EM+ ORC gives the
maximum possible reduction in greenhouse emissions Fig. 10.

ACTUAL

Looking for the best economic result, the heat recovery from
the incinerator and the substitution for the electric motors have a
very short payback time. On the other hand, the addition of the
ORC technology yields a much better performance for GHG reduction. The developed methodology i.e., BAT efficiency definition, exergy analysis, and process simulation with HYSYS will
allow extending the analysis to more gas and oil treatment plants
to catch other energy saving opportunities.

Nomenclature
BAT efficiency of the plant with respect to BAT
e,ref fuel-to-electricity conversion reference
Etr,BAT
G
h
INC
LHV

Conclusions

In this paper, the revamping solutions to enhance the energy

efficiency of an existing gas treatment plant are analyzed. The
modifications are i heat recovery from the incinerator exhaust
gases, ii substitution of the LP-IP turbine with an electric motor,
and iii either a steam cycle or an ORC as a bottoming cycle from
the IP-HP turbines waste heat. To achieve the goal, a flexible
process simulation model is developed and validated with measured field data. The model is capable of carrying out plant energy, exergy, and economic analysis in order to predict the performance and viability by varying the inlet gas conditions.

0.5
0.4

Profitability index

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
8%

10%

12%

14%
WACC

16%

18%

20%

Fig. 9 Influence of the WACC on the profitability index for the

sole INC+ EM+ ORC revamped layout

012001-8 / Vol. 133, MARCH 2011

INC+EM+ORC INC+EM+SC

Fig. 10 Carbon dioxide emissions of the current and revamped configuration

Pcomp,BAT

INC+EM

efficiency
equivalent fuel rate for gas treatment with BAT
mass flow
specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
incinerator
low heating value, kJ/kg
electric power for gas compression with BAT,
kW

References
1 Svalheim, S., and King, D. C., 2003, Life of Field Energy Performance,
Proceedings of the Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, UK, Paper No.
SPE 83993-MS.
2 Chauvin, D., Depraz, S., and Buckley, H., 2008, Saving Energy in Oil and
Gas Industry, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Nice,
France, Paper No. SPE 111937-MS.
3 OGP, 2006, Environmental Performance in the E&P Industry: 2005 Data,
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 383.
4 Edwards, J., 2004, Improving Energy Efficiency in E&P Operations, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, AB, Canada, Paper
No. SPE 86604-MS.
5 Nordrum, S., Loreti, C., McMahon, M., and Ritter, K., 2004, Development of
a Consistent Approach to Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Petroleum Industry, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary,
AB, Canada, Paper No. SPE 86609-MS.
6 Cain, J., Lee, A., and Mingst, A., 2006, Developing and Using Technologies
to Manage and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Proceedings of the SPE
International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Paper No. SPE 98399-MS.
7 Verkaamp, W., and Heidug, W. K., 2006, A Strategy for the Reduction of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference
on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Paper No. SPE 98753-MS.
8 Kloster, P., 1999, Energy Optimization on Offshore Installations with Emphasis on Offshore Combined Cycle Plants, Proceedings of the Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, UK, Paper No. SPE 56964-MS.
9 Kloster, P., 2000, Reduction of Emissions to Air Through Energy Optimisation on Offshore Installations, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Stavanger, Norway, Paper No. SPE 61651-MS.
10 Schuster, A., Karellas, S., Kakaras, E., and Spliethoff, H., 2009, Energetic

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

and Economic Investigation of Organic Rankine Cycle Applications, Appl.

Therm. Eng., 2989, pp. 18091817.
11 Dai, Y., Wang, J., and Gao, L., 2009, Parametric Optimization and Comparative Study of Organic Rankine Cycle ORC for Low Grade Waste Heat Recovery, Energy Convers. Manage., 503, pp. 576582.
12 Peng, D.-Y., and Robinson, D. B., 1976, A New Two-Constant Equation of

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 151, pp. 5964.

13 Twu, C. H., Tassone, V., Sim, W. D., and Watanasiri, S., 2005, Advanced
Equation of State Method for Modeling TEGWater for Glycol Gas Dehydration, Fluid Phase Equilib., 228229, pp. 213221.
14 Kotas, T. J., 1985, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis, Butterworths, London.

MARCH 2011, Vol. 133 / 012001-9

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use