SPE 126479

Energy Efficient Designs; Facing New Challenges with Best Practices and
Innovative Thinking
Mike Godfrey & Annette Watlow, SPE, BP

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 12–14 April 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The climate change agenda is to move from a trend of increasing green house gas (GHG) emissions to either holding
emissions flat then reducing over the next few decades. By examining upstream projects early enough in the project lifecycle
and using tools to assess energy usage over the field life of the project, reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved, which
results in savings of operating costs and future carbon dioxide (CO2) trading costs.

Several techniques and tools have been developed which, when applied at the correct stage of the project, can help to optimise
energy intensity and CO2 emissions. These include workshops, forecasting software for GHG emissions and flowsheeting tools
to evaluate various design configurations taking into account cost, reliability and project variables such as weight and space.
Results show that by applying these tools early in the design life energy intensity can be significantly reduced, which results in
lower operating costs for fuel and potential CO2 costs.

Introduction
This paper outlines opportunities and techniques to be included in the design stages of a project to enhance energy efficiency
in the Operate stage. Evaluation of different design options have been assessed taking into account cost of carbon and
operating cost of fuel. Projects at the early stages of design have been considered for different energy supply technologies and
compared, taking into account capex and opex, including the current European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS)
cost of CO2 and an assumed/regional fuel gas cost. Practical considerations have been taken into account of weight and space
on offshore platforms; heat and power integration based on design needs.

A number of techniques can be applied at the early stages of a project development. These include workshops, with
facilitators external to the project; software to identify the most energy efficient design; quantification of life of field energy
intensity and CO2 emissions; and consideration of further development.

A number of techniques have been developed to deliver improved energy efficient facility design. These have led to
significant reductions in CO2 emissions, improvements in safety and reliability, and CAPEX cost reduction as well as OPEX
cost reduction. The crucial finding has been to ensure consideration is taken of these applications early enough in design

Scope and Purpose

To increase energy efficiency; reduce fuel costs and carbon costs, OPEX through the design of an Exploration and production
(E&P) project, hence significantly reducing costs when the project is Operating.

Definitions
What is energy efficiency? Firstly energy efficiency is NOT energy conservation. What energy efficiency is all about is
maintaining current production or lifestyle whilst consuming less energy. Further, energy intensity is a measurement of how
much energy is used to produce and export the hydrocarbon products from a field. It is a percentage, expressed as energy
consumed / energy exported. This is a useful metric to use comparing different assets or evaluating options for a future
development.
2 SPE 126479

Energy efficiency could be taken into account for all projects, but this paper focuses on E&P projects in the Oil and gas
industry, which includes offshore, onshore, terminals, liquid natural gas (LNG) and pipelines. All have varying energy
requirements, depending on the configuration of the asset. Even in upstream projects every asset needs to be addressed on a
case by case basis. Offshore water injection requirements for reservoir maintenance can increase the energy requirements
significantly; compression requirements vary, all of which have significantly different requirements to be addressed when
looking at energy efficiency.
How can it affect the design of an E&P project? How should it affect the design of an E&P project?

Background

Climate change is a well documented and discussed issue that has global implications. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report was issued in 20071
This report highlighted that
warming of the climate system is
unequivocal see figure 1, and
Paleoclimatic information
supports the interpretation that
the warming of the last half
century is unusual in at least the
previous 1,300 years. The level
of certainty that this change is
man made was deemed very
likely2 i.e. > 90% probability and
the impacts of climate change
could be very challenging - the
last time the polar regions were
significantly warmer than present
for an extended period (about
125,000 years ago), reductions in
polar ice volume led to 4 to 6m
of sea level rise.

Figure 1: IPCC Fourth Assessment report

The objective of article 2 of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on

climate change is to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system. Total emissions are often expressed as tonnes of CO2
equivalent or CO2e which accounts for the global warming impact of other Green
House Gases (GHG) such as methane are normalized to CO2.
Various levels of atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding impact upon global
temperatures have been modelled. As shown in figure 2 values in the range 450 –
550 ppm CO2 are predicted to limit temperature change to < 3°C.
A number of models have been developed to show total global emissions would
need to be stabilized in order to achieve stabilization of GHG’s and thus limit the
impact upon the climate system. See figure 3, which uses the US proposed
legislation to account for emissions reductions. Figure 2: IPCC 4th Assessment report;
CO2 levels vs. temperature change

1
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; Summary for Policy makers
2
Compared to the 3rd assessment report
SPE 126479 3

Figure 3: Potential emissions reduction under US proposals - World Resources Institute

The 8 wedges to stabilisation3

To move from the current path of increasing CO2 emissions to

one that involves holding emissions flat or reducing in the Wedges
future is a huge challenge. No single strategy can deliver this
goal and a variety of strategies will be required if countries 14 Billion of Tons of
14 GtC/y
Carbon Emitted per
are to avoid a doubling of CO2 emissions. To meet this Year
challenge the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) have Currently projected path
identified a number of strategies, each one delivering an “Wedges”
annual reduction that grows from 0 to 1 GteC/year in 50 years
Historical
time. (Figure 4) These strategies are based around 7
emissions
Flat path
O 7 GtC/y
technologies that already exist at some scale today.
The 8 ‘wedges’ are
− Energy Efficiency - Fuel Switching
− CCS - Nuclear Electricity 1.9 Æ
− Wind Electricity - Solar Electricity 0

− Biofuels - Natural sinks 1955 2005 2055 2105

Figure 4: Wedges to achieve stabilisation

Of the solutions identified energy efficiency could be considered to be one of the leading technologies since it is amongst the
simplest to implement and should be free from issues such as local opposition that may impede other strategies (nuclear, wind
farm, carbon capture and storage (CCS)). It can also follow a continuous improvement whereby incremental changes will
accumulate over time. Energy efficiency designs are available today.
An exert from Tony Haywards recent speech Oct 20094:
The smartest and most effective choice we can all make is to use energy far more efficiently. In fact, we'll need a series of
road-maps as the transition won't be a 'one size fits all'. Each government will have to assess their natural advantages - and
deficiencies - in energy, so that they can set a workable framework within which the market can deliver. We find it helpful to
think about this in terms of a range of 'energy pathways' for different countries and industries - for example the pathway for
US transport, or for US power. By breaking it down, you can get an idea of the most effective and efficient ways of reducing
carbon emissions while also planning ways of meeting the ever-growing demand for energy. In thinking about those
pathways, we can draw a number of conclusions:
The first is that they all start with energy efficiency.

3
Ref S. Pacala and R. Socolow
Science 13 August 2004: Vol. 305. no. 5686, pp. 968 - 972
This paper is a product of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) of the Princeton Environmental Institute at Princeton University. CMI
(www.princeton.edu/ cmi) is sponsored by BP and Ford
4
‘Meeting the Energy challenge’; Oil and Money conference, London
4 SPE 126479

Trading schemes

Governments around the world are rapidly moving from developing policy around Green House Gases to implementation.
Stakeholder and public expectation is growing to the effect that large energy intensive businesses act responsibly on their
emissions. Norway was the first country to act with a flat tax on CO2 and the European Union the first to introduce a regional
framework with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Other regions are following suit with the US mandating CO2
emissions reporting from 2010 and subsequent revenue generation anticpated from 2012.Trading schemes are also developing
in other regions including Australia and Canada. Individual countries are setting tough individual targets e.g. UK has
proposed an 80% reduction in CO2 emmissions by 2050.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

EU ETS Phase Phase

2 3
Australia ETS (includes transport fuels)

Canadian tax and GHG regulations EPA draft CCS

reporting Final EPA
guidelines reporting rules

US Reporting and Regulations Emissions Regulations

Bali Poland Denmark Reporting
Post-Kyoto mechanisms
Figure 5: The timeline for CO2 trading schemes

The aim of these trading schemes are to limit emissions of CO2 and incentivise industry to reduce emissions. There is,
therefore, a value that can be attributed to improvements in energy efficiency.

A scenario worked up to show the impact that Carbon trading will have in the North sea:
50 MW of electrical power is generated by an open cycle gas turbine.
Gas Turbine Heat Rate of 9,000 BTU/KWe.hr (which is at the top end of efficiency ranges)
- 67,000 Te/year of fuel gas ($15.8 million @ $4 / mmBTU)
- 185,000 Te/yr CO2 ($ 7.4 million @$40/Te)
- 1 MW of power saved would generate an annual saving of (15.8 + 7.4) / 50 = $0.46 million
- This is equivalent to a net present value (NPV) of approx $0.46 * 7 = $3.2 million.
So energy efficiency is not just about being ‘green’, it’s about savings in real terms and a better way to operate.

Techniques/Tools

To enable future projects to reduce operating costs in fuel and CO2 tax, some or all of the following tools have been applied at
various stages of a project. Reference is made to BP’s staged project process which comprises (Access), Appraise, Select,
Define, Execute and Operate.

Some techniques and tools that have been applied thorugh the lifecycle of projects are
¾ Oil and gas manager (OGM) appraisal tool, which has CO2 cost embedded
¾ Facilitated Workshops
¾ Screening tools, for example; evaluation of thermal heat and electrical power demands to determine power
generation efficienciencies and potential technologies for improving efficiency.
¾ GHG Forecaster Tool
The following table shows at which stage of a project these tools can typically be applied.

Appraise Select Define Execute Operate

OGM • •
Facilitated Workshops • •
Screening Tool • •
GHG Forecaster • • •
SPE 126479 5

Oil and Gas Manager

Oil and Gas Manager (OGM) is a tool used by several upstream major oil and gas companies to generate a technical definition
and intial cost and weight estimates for both offshore and onshore development opportunities and options. OGM is a powerful
tool in that it not only undertakes preliminary material balances and equipment sizing, but also develops weight estimates.
Primarily used during the early stage screening of Projects in Access, Appraise and Select, OGM provides initial CAPEX and
OPEX estimates that can be used to evaluate different concepts for field development. BP has worked with Siemens, the
software developer, to bring additional functionality into OGM so that due consideration of energy efficiency can be included
during the initial project development. Primarily this functionality includes mapping of gas turbine performance so that CO2
emissions and fuel usage can be determined over the life of field or life of asset. The OGM tool, also includes the options of
alternative power generation and supply including combined cycle systems, power from shore, etc. This enables BP to give
due consideration to the costs of carbon and value that can be attributed to savings in fuel gas usage when developing
preliminary concepts and variants within a selected concept.

To give an example an analysis was completed for a Floating Production and storage offloading ( FPSO) using OGM
evaluating the differences in key parameters between open cycle gas turbines and electric motors. The basis was a West
Africa, spread moored FPSO with a nominal peak oil production of 200,000 bbls/day. In the open cycle configuration GT’s
are used as direct drives for major compression and pump duties and also to generate electrical power for smaller motor driven
and ancillary consumers. In the ‘all electric’ approach the GT’s are used in a N+15 configuration to generate electrical power.
Electric motors are then used for gas compressors, oil export pumps, water injection pumps and other miscellaneous loads.
Figure 6 shows the comparison of weight and area requirements for the options described above plus, as an additional
benchmark, power from shore. The output shows that the area and cost of ‘all electric’ and direct drives are similar, however
the electric concept has a weight advantage.

The weight and space requirements for an offshore FPSO for direct drive GT’s compared to electric motors and power from
shore. This is one of the aspects that needs to be considered in the decision making process.

5,000 500
Eqpt Dry Weight

Area m2

4,750 Top Fab Cost $m 475

4,500 450
Dry weight & Area

Top Fab Cost $m

4,250 425

4,000 400

3,750 375

3,500 350
Gas Turb Elec Motor Shore - CCGT Shore - Coal

Figure 6: Comparison between different power supply configuration

Power demand can vary significantly throughout the life of field of a facility. The water cut profile, oil and gas production
through initial ramp-up, plateau and decline and production slow downs, all contribute to variability in the actual power
requirements. Peak power generation may only be for 2-3 years and with direct drive equipment GT’s will often run off peak.
As well as impacting the ability to operate in DLE mode the efficiency of a GT also drops as output falls. This is particularly
applicable to aero derivative GT’s - see following chart, Figure 7.

5
N+1 configuration means one additional installed turbine / alternator above the design requirements. This allows for planned
maintenance and downtime without impacting power availability.
6 SPE 126479

Part-load Efficiency Curves

RB211 (6562G)
45 Avon
Frame 5 (5371PA)
40
Frame 6

35 Frame 7
LM1600
30 LM2500
LM2500+
Efficiency (%)

25
LM6000
20 Mars 100
Saturn 20
15
Centaur 50
Taurus 60
10
Tornado
5 TB5000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage Loading

Figure 7: Part load efficiency curves for Gas turbines

With an ‘all electric’ configuration we can match the number of drivers operating to the total process (and ancillary) power
demand. The advantage means that it may be possible to switch off one of the power generators GT’s and run the remaining
units at higher efficiency. The following figure shows emissions of CO2, fuel requirements over the life of field of the project.
The chart compares the expected CO2 emissions and the cumulative savings over the lifetime of the facility. The NPV for the
‘all electric’ case is in excess of $70 million.

By looking at the life of field production and power requirements and operating costs, the most energy efficient design can be
achieved. It also involves having appropriate operating procedures that are adhered to and not running spinning reserve.

700000 Year 80.0

GT - CO2 emissions Te/yr
EM - CO2 emissions Te/yr
70.0
600000 Delta CO2 : Cumulative $ million
Delta Fuel : Cumulative $ million
Delta Value (Cumulative, Depreciated)

Delta Value : Cumulative $ million 60.0

500000
CO2 emissions, Te

50.0
400000

40.0

300000
30.0

200000
20.0

100000
10.0

0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Figure 8: Gas Turbines vs electric motors
SPE 126479 7

Facilitated workshops

Facilitated Workshops with relevant engineers and project personnel are used in a structured format through the initial stages
of a project. The energy efficiency workshop, subsequent study and decision making process is one of the Value Improving
Practices (VIP’s) that BP applies to all of it’s major projects. The energy VIP aims to provide projects and Gatekeepers with a
framework to enable projects to fully consider best available technology and the significance of energy performance in
conjunction with other project imperatives
The importance and use of undertaking an energy efficiency workshop is:
• To minimise energy costs
• To maximise the flow of saleable product to customers
• To support BP’s goal of minimizing emissions from our operations.

The main elements contributing to efficient energy performance and which are considered during the VIP study are working
with projects to assist in development of the best option by understanding losses and how they can be minimised by using
tools/calculations to assess different energy scenarios. The workshop looks at the power and heat provision and strives to
maintain efficiency as key parameters (flowrates, pressures etc) change over project life. The workshop also considers new
and appropriate technologies. A range of development options should be reviewed and the technical definition developed
sufficient enough to demonstrate technical and commercial viability. Concept selection needs to be value enhancing
employing technology and practices that are both energy efficient and make good commercial sense.

During the Appraise stage of a project, activities are aimed at gaining an understanding of the scope of work, direction of
action, and a plan to move forward to meet the overall objective for energy efficiency. An initial activity that the project team
should consider to develop this “way forward” is a workshop or meeting.

The primary purpose of Appraise Stage activity is to establish the “Technical Limit” and “Best in Class” performance to
ensure that emerging technologies and alternative techniques are fully considered during concept evaluation. It provides
information that will facilitate meaningful external challenge. Projects in Appraise (concept) should have enough information
to allow a high level assessment of the energy requirements over the life of field.

An example of key considerations during this stage would be provision of power options.
• Does the choice of power concept for the project close down options for other developments in the area or later
phases of the project. i.e. is a higher level strategic decision required before optimising the immediate project in
isolation.
• Availability of “alternate energy sources”: reservoir pressure, wind, solar etc
• Imported power v self-generation. (Co-generation, combined cycle plant)
• Potential to integrate power generation with heat loads. (Combined heat and power)
• Power from Shore.
• Central power generation or distributed generation.

The select stage should repeat the process described in “Appraise” on the more limited range of options considered relevant at
this stage. The process should be undertaken with more rigour than the high level approach considered appropriate earlier in
design. An example of key considerations at this stage would be the whole life load profile.
• How do the major loads vary with time? Identify the key operational phases with energy implications: e.g. onset of
gas compression, water injection,
• What impact does this have on Longer term heat / power integration; the number and module size for major
compressors, pumps etc and consider the inclusion of variable speed capability.
This exercise will fine tune the energy requirements and allow selection of the best option for power and heat delivery.
Then at the define stage the focus is to ensure that the detail within the project specification allows good energy management
to be practiced in the commissioned facility. This can be aided by the specification of appropriate metering and
instrumentation to enable the energy flows in the major operations and major energy consuming plant to be monitored.
Energy performance should be determined by comparing energy consumption with the factors which cause energy to be
consumed eg power / steam generated, amine regenerated etc. Any reasons for energy performance deterioration should be
investigated eg pressure drop across turbine air inlet filters.
Where possible, control systems should be configured to provide energy performance indices and reports, directly or via input
to approved Monitoring and Targeting software.
8 SPE 126479

Each project will have it’s own unique features and challenges. The use of facilitated workshops with the appropriate
disciplines and experience enables the most appropriate energy efficient solution for heat and power generation to be
developed.

Screening Tool

A number of technologies are available to improve the energy efficiency of power generation over that of simple open cycle
gas turbines. One simple method that is often implemented involves the generation of process heating medium via the use of a
waste heat recovery unit (WHRU). This can significantly increase the efficiency of an open cycle gas turbine, the actual
amount depends upon the requirement for process heat. However often in upstream projects the amount of waste heat required
is significantly lower than that available as a by-product of power generation.
The simple diagram below, figure 8, shows how the relative quantities of heat to power for an open cycle gas turbine with
simple WHRU. Thus for every 100 energy Units in the fuel gas approximately 32 Units of electrical power can be generated.
Assuming 65% of the remaining waste heat can be recovered then 44 units of process heat can be recovered with 24 units lost
in the vent stack.
This simple heat and mass balance shows us that:
- The maximum thermal efficiency for the combined heat and power configuration is (electrical power + thermal load) / input
energy = (32 + 44 ) / 100 = 76%.
- This is only achievable if the heat to power ratio is 11:8 or greater
In practice (see figure 11) this is rarely the case and the electrical power demand is normally greater than that of the heating
requirements. If the waste heat is not utilized the actual thermal efficiency will therefore fall. In the extreme case the thermal
efficiency will be 32% if only electrical power is required with minimal process heating requirements.

Key
Fuel 246 Losses 39

Thermal Flow 108 Process Heat 48

Electrical Power 21

24

44
W
Fuel H Process
100 R Heat
U
GT 32

Figure 9: Simple heat & mass balance for open cycle GT with WHRU

From a thermodynamic point of view the provison of heating medium at say 130o C is a poor use for a GT hot exhaust stream
at circa 500oC. Several technologies to make better use of the hot GT exhaust gas exist, such as generation of steam in a heat
recovery steam generator exist and are well developed both on and offshore. The steam generated can be expanded in a steam
turbine to generate additional electrical power. Part of the steam can also be extracted part way through the turbine to deliver
the process heating medium required and reduce the utility requirements for the steam condenser. The chart below, figure 10,
gives a very simple over view of such a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) system and an indication of the heat flows.
SPE 126479 9

24 20

44
W
Fuel H
100 R
U Steam Turbine 8
GT 32

Key
Fuel 246 Losses 39
CWS CWR
16
Thermal Flow 108 Process Heat 48

Electrical Power 21

Figure 10: Simple heat & mass balance for gas turbine in combined cycle

The simple heat and mass balance for the combined cycle system above is based on 40 MW electrical power output and 20
MW process heating demand. A simple study for various outputs shows that
- The maximum thermal efficiency is still only 76% (and only at very high heating demand rates)
- The ratio of power to heat can be adjusted to balance the heat and power efficiency
- For a typical heat to power ratio the efficiency achievable in combined cycle will always exceed that for an open cycle.

Opportunities to improve energy efficiency are often identified in the energy efficiency facilitated workshops as described
above. Rather than conduct extensive studies using software such as thermoflow a simple screening tool was required to
rapidly quantify opportunities. Using the simple approach outlined above such a tool is under development as the following
chart shows. For any given heat and power requirement the typical open cycle efficiency can be rapidly determined. A similar
series of curves can be used to determine the efficiency in combined cycle mode. Comparison of the two can be used to
quantify savings that can be made and the corresponding NPV can be used to rapidly quantify the additional CAPEX spend
that can be justified.
Estimated Open Cycle Efficiencies
300

280

76%
260

240 72%

220 68%

200
Heat Requirement (MW)

64%

180
60%
160
56%
140

120 52%

100 48%

80
44%

60
3 40%
1
40
36%
20 2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Electrical Power Requirement (MW)

Figure 11: Heat and power requirements

10 SPE 126479

Technology selection

As described above a number of technologies can be used to increase the efficiency of electrical power generation. With an
understanding of the various technologies that are available the screening tool above can be used to identify suitable
candidiates. The boxes in figure 11 above, represent three actual projects.

Box three shows a facility with both a relatively high electrical power demand, just over 100 MW and a process heating
demand of around 50 MW. The chart shows that in open cycle mode with WHRU this will have an efficiency of around 47%.
A similar chart for CCGT configuration shows that the efficiency rises to just over 60%. Such a project could be a suitable
candidiate for a CCGT system and should be evaluated.

Box two shows a facility with a slightly lower electrical demand of just under 80 MW but a relatively low process heating
demand of just under 20MW. Due to the low process heating demand, even in combined cycle the overall energy efficiency
would be relatively low at around 54%. The project team evaluated the CCGT option but finally elected to develop a power
from shore option. The power required is fed from a reliable on-shore grid and transmitted via a 300 km DC cable. For this
project the challenge then became the provision of process heat since no waste heat was available offshore. This barrier was
overcome by transferring the energy from compression after coolers to process heaters via the use of an intermediate medium.

Box one shows a facility with more modest electrical power requirements and a relatively high heat:power ratio. In open cycle
mode the combined heat and power efficiency is already > 60%. Options for this project targetted increasing the efficiency in
open cycle further. These included minimizing the power demand further through the use of variable speed drives and
maximizing the efficiency of power generation

Forecasting tools

BP uses a GHG forecaster software tool that with basic input data can be used to accurately predict the future emissions for
an asset. A GHG Forecaster Tool uses the facility data such as oil, gas and water throughputs to determine the major
equipment power consumptions. These are then summed with other fixed loads to determine the overall power generation
requirements, the Gas Turbine operating point, fuel usage & CO2 emissions.

The tool models direct drive, ‘all electric’ type facilities or a combination of both and can very quickly indicate at what stage
of the project life when rewheeling may be required, or when the process is in recycle, all adding to the inefficiences
experienced when the project is not at plateau production.
The Green House Gas (GHG) forecaster can be used to predict their CO2 emissions when in Operate to understand the cost
impact for CO2 trading. Looking further ahead the business can further quantify their medium to long term exposure and
develop an appropriate action plan. For new facilities the tool can be used to support decisions around the choice of power
system or size and number of GT’s. By taking account of operating scenarios and predicted production profiles the tool can
estimate life of field emissions and costs assigned to this. It can also be used to inform decisions such as the selection of gas
turbine size and number; for projects to understand where and when equipment may not be operating at optimum performance;
and to quantify the benefit of changing a compressor drive from fixed to variable speed.

Stage of design

In the early stages of development the impact of big decisions like power from shore, combined cycle, motor v turbine drives,
number of trains etc can be evaluated for significance. Knowing the life of field energy and CO2 costs profile opens up the
project team’s eyes to the significance of different options and whether they are affordable.
We have an example of CCGT being seriously considered having been dismissed after a few moments discussion originally
because seeing the life of operation impact and the scale of the fuel /CO2 savings they realised that this option was too
attractive not to consider seriously.
The GHG forecaster Tool is excellent For Option Appraisal In Concept / Project Development to aid in:
- technology selection, driver selection, number of trains
- inclusion of energy & CO2 costs enable quick viability assessment
- enables a life cycle approach to project development

Later on in design the more details that are available can then assess the impact of driver selection, operating philosophy eg
running spare equipment.
SPE 126479 11

Concept/Appraise stage

Option 1
Production
forecasts over life Option 2 BAT
of field Option 3

ª Oil flow Sensitivities

ª Gas flow
ª Water rates Plant & Ops Options
Outputs
ª Flare & Vent estimate Different Gas Turbines
Spinning Reserve Fuel & CO2 Cost
Technology Options Energy KPIs
Uncertainties
Production Forecasts Plant Load Profiles
Power Import CO2 Trading Value Emissions Profiles
CCGT Fuel Price
GT vs Motor Drive Fuel Gas Composition
No of trains Ambient temperature
Days on Diesel
Downtime

The forecaster tool can very quickly calculate the fuel usage, CO2 emissions and costs for various options under consideration
in the concept stage of development. The ‘usual’ open cycle gas turbine design for producing power may seem like the ‘best
option’, but this tool can quickly determine other options or combination of options that are far better from an energy
efficiency and hence operating cost point of view, this information can be fed into the decision making process.
An example of an existing operation looking to minimise its exposure under the EU ETS:
This has 2 turbine generators running for security of supply, even though at this stage one would still be more than sufficient.
A few years ago it had additional direct drive gas compression added and we used the forecasting tool to look at the impact of
three options:
Replacing the turbines with new right size turbines
Running on a single power generation turbine
Swopping the compressor turbines with electric motors to increase the loading on the electical generators.
Using the tool showed that the two turbines were only 34% loaded, it also showed that while the HP compressor is alright, the
MP mid life compression is almost at the stage where one train could have been turned off, if wasn’t driven by a common
shaft. The tool showed that 15kte CO2 saving would be available from right sizing the turbines. This rises to ~ 22kte if we
replace the turbines driving the compressors for right size turbines and a 70kte saving with an all electric configuration.

7 0 0 ,0 0 0

6 8 0 ,0 0 0

6 6 0 ,0 0 0
Tonnes CO2

C u rre n t
D r iv e r C h a n g e
6 4 0 ,0 0 0 M o to r D r iv e
S in g le G T
A ll e le c tr ic

6 2 0 ,0 0 0

6 0 0 ,0 0 0

5 8 0 ,0 0 0
2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 12: CO2 comparison for different power delivery options

12 SPE 126479

As can be seen from the above graph, motor drive and a single GT are comparable, there is little difference in only having a
motor drive if the GTs are not running spinning reserve. The savings in fuel gas and potential CO2 costs come with the all
electric configuration.

Fuel Cost - $7/mmBtu

12
CO2 Cost - $29/ tonne
10 Based on EU ETS trading
price at the time
8
Million Dollars

Fuel
6
CO2

0
Driver Change Motor Drive Single GT Op All Electric

Figure 13: CO2 and fuel cost for the above 4 different power delivery options

This is the average saving in money terms for this period (annual 4 year average)
A Single turbine generator operation would save $4m / year, worth investing up to $20m CAPEX eg standby power
from adjacent platform
• Questionable decision to provide turbine driven mid life compression
Motor drive would save $3.8m / year, but could result in a CAPEX spend of up to $20m
• Generally hard to justify driving different stages with single shaft over life of operation
• An all electric platform would save $11m/y now in CO2 and fuel costs

This is significant money and it shows how much incremental CAPEX could have been justified to produce a better, lower
carbon, better business case solution.

Another note of interest is the cost of the fuel. As you can see the fuel costs are significantly greater than the CO2 costs, based
on current EU ETS trading prices, so when designing for energy efficiency one of the key drivers needs to be fuel costs, not
just CO2 costs.

Discussion

Climate change is now a recognised and widely accepted issue. Governments around the world are rapidly moving from
developing policy around Green House Gases to implementation, which will impact the oil and gas industry. Most legislation,
at the federal, regional and state levels are targeting a reduction of 60-80% of current emissions by 2050, this is in line with
meeting the 450-550ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere to limit temperature increases below 3o C. Most existing and proposed
OECD country plans reflect this target. However, non OECD countries may be subject to a border tax adjustment by OECD
economies and if they are part of the clean development mechanism they may have goals as part of post Kyoto framework.
Therefore carbon costs will become a global concern.

Stakeholder and public expectation is growing to the effect that large energy intensive businesses act responsibly on their
emissions. Therefore, significant effort is required to hold flat GHG emissions and then reduce.

It is recognized that no one technology can meet the target. A variety of strategies will need to be used to stay on a path that
avoids a CO2 doubling over the coming decades. Of the 8 ‘wedges’ proposed energy efficiency may be the most palatable,
more easily implemented, which is available today and is a key lever in government policy. Energy efficiency as part of the
design engineering process now can significantly reduce operating costs over the design life of a project, this is fuel costs as
well as CO2 trading costs.
SPE 126479 13

To deliver on energy efficiency we need to identify the right technology for the right project at the right time. We now have
the tools. Ensuring projects have access to all the tools in the toolbox and are aware of all the issues is key to ensuring that the
process is working well. Workshops, carried out early enough in design, with external facilitators can lead to brainstorming
and lateral thinking with the result in studies being undertaken that can reduce energy usage over the life of the field.

One of the biggest barriers has been the acceptance of project personnel to firstly believe that the Governments view on
climate change is that it is happening, and further global trading is anticipated, which will effect projects that are being
designed now over their operating life. CAPEX is a key driver for project design but we need to ensure OPEX is not the poor
relative, the cost to E&P business in carbon trading should not be underestimated.

Secondly, to make project personnel aware of the cost to operations over the life of field, when shown as NPV they do sit up
and pay attention. One project in the North Sea shows that a saving of 1MW of power annually could result in $0.46m saving,
which gives a NPV of $3.2m6 when taking into account the fuel gas costs $4/mmBTU and carbon trading costs of $40/te. A
lot of innovative design can be undertaken with that value on the table.

Therefore, it is important to have the value on the table for CO2 and fuel costs to ensure projects have a view of the costs
involved. By working out the NPV prior to any workshops and ensuring the prize is identified it sets the scene for the ensuing
workshops.

What is needed though is Policy to aid the decision making process. There is a need to have a value for fuel gas as well as
CO2 that will ensure the real cost to operate over the life of field drives the decision making process. We need correct policy
to provide the framework / guidance in the right direction. Once there is value on the table people will sit up and take notice.

The key to ensuring energy efficient designs is to undertake appraise stage reviews of new projects, which will ensure
maximum potential to affect long term performance. Energy efficieny needs to be one of the options taken into account during
the selction process of a project. Using the tools described in this paper can strongly influence the correct design for the
project for future energy efficiency and reduce long term operating costs.

Nomenclature

BAT Best Available Technology

CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine
CMI Carbon mitigation initiative
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DLE Dry Low emissions
E&P Exploration and Production
EU ETS European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
FPSO Floating production storage and offloading
GHG Geen house gases
GT Gas turbine
IPCC Intergovernemntal panel on climate change
LNG Liquid Natural gas
KPI Key Performance indicators
MW Mega watts
NPV Net present value
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development
OGM Oil and gas manager
VIP Value Improving process
WHRU Waste heat recovery Unit

References

IPCC reference taken from their home website Fourth Assessment report 2007; Summary for Policy makers
S Pacala and R. Socolow, Science 13 August 2004, Volume 305 no 5686 pp 968 - 972. Carbon Mitigation Initiative, Princeton
environmental Institute, Princeton University
World Resources Institute, Emission Reductions Under Cap-and-Trade Proposals in the 111th Congress, 2005-2050

6
Assumes 50MW electrical power, @ heat rate 9,000 BTU/Kwe.hr; resulting in 67000 te/y fuel gas & 185000 te/y CO2. Cost
of gas at $4/mmBTU cost of CO2 at $40/te.