SPE - H00278035

Economic optimization of topside compressor stations scheme

Bruno Oliveira Melo, ISPG; Khafiz Muradov, HWU; Jorge Trujillo, Galp; Paulo Gomes, ISPG
Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Abstract
The objective of this study was to understand the impact on project net present value by considering different
redundancy schemes for compression stations and gas turbines at the topside. Eight case studies were defined
based on the combination of four compression station configurations (A,B,C,D) and two power generation unit
configurations (1,2). The associated system availabilities were calculated and a workflow delineated in order to
meet the aforementioned goal.
Each case starts with a fluid processing simulation in Aspen HYSYS® using production profiles that take
into account processing facilities availability. Different cases generated distinct power requirements, which
demanded appropriate power generation units. CAPEX/OPEX were estimated using QUE$TOR® and the
project net present value calculated assuming the Brazilian concession regime. The data analysis and
conclusions were drawn comparing the several case results against an industry standard case (case A1).
Case C2 proved to be the best option to maximize the profit potential. It has a NPV 11% greater than
industry standard case (A1), while topside weight is roughly the same (+0.5%). The results should be analysed
with caution and keeping in mind the roots of uncertainty and possible error propagation. Sensitivity analysis
shown that project NPV is extremely sensitive to oil price, production profile and availability values.
For future projects it is important to incorporate the implications of operational flexibility and estimate
the availability with a higher degree of accuracy. MAROS® software from DNV is a possible solution to integrate
the above suggestions.

1 Introduction
Gas compressors are commonly found in oil and gas processing facilities around the world. Compressors
provide energy to the gas resulting in a pressure increase. Their scope of application range from vapour
recovery units to gas lift and export systems. The compressors scheme should be optimised to maximise
hydrocarbon recovery whilst minimising power requirements.
Gas compression stations configuration is a crucial subject since it greatly affects availability that in turn
impacts project profitability. The cost of extra-availability by adjusting the number or configuration of equipment
needs to be compensated by revenues from additional fluid production.

2 Literature Review
2.1 World energy panorama
The world energetic panorama is changing. According to BP’s energy outlook [1], although the overall demand
for energy looks set to continue expand, driven by the fast growing emerging economies, the oil demand growth
is expected to slow down as vehicles become more efficient and electric. This change in the energetic matrix
represents the need to meet the world’s energy demand growth while reducing the environmental footprint.
Nevertheless, oil is expected to be the dominant energy source in the next 20 years. The global proved
oil reserves have more than doubled over the past 35 years, leading to a situation where known resources today
dwarf the world’s likely consumption to 2050 and beyond [1]. Most of the recent discoveries occurred in
Deepwater and Ultra-Deepwater environment, which is recognised as one of the last remaining areas of the
world were oil and natural gas resources remain to be discovered and produced [2].
2.2 Production platform processing scheme
In Deepwater and Ultra-Deepwater environment, throughout the field’s life, different infrastructures are required
such as seismic acquisition vessels, drilling rigs (semi-subs or drillships), subsea production systems and
production platforms. The selection of an offshore production platform is mainly constrained by the water depth
of the field. However, it is required to take into account the environmental conditions and the expected
production plateau. Considering a range of production plateaus due to geological and reservoir uncertainties, a
final decision will be taken based in an economics analysis in order to maximize the Net Present Value (NPV).
One of the main functions of a production platform is to separate gas, oil and water phases and to treat
them in order to meet the disposal, sales and/or reinjection specifications. To achieve this objective, several
processing units are present at the platform and its design varies according to field requirements. The topside
facilities design and operation influence hydrocarbon recovery, which in turn affects the economics of any
project. It is imperative to stress that processing units design is a result of a trade-off between capital
 2 SPE - H00278035

expenditure, operating cost and revenues from exported fluids [3]. An example of typical gas, oil and water
processing scheme can be seen in Figure 1.
The reservoir fluids are produced to surface at the wellhead, following to a train of gravity horizontal
separators where gas, oil and water phases are separated. The production choke reduces well pressure to the
high pressure manifold and first stage separator. Pressure is further reduced in several stages to allow the
controlled separation of volatile components, in order to maximise liquid hydrocarbon recovery and stabilisation
of oil and gas phases. Separator efficiency is constrained by its retention period, which in turn depends on the
processing rate compared to the design capacity. The retention time should be enough to allow gas to bubble
out and water to settle at bottom, while oil is taken out from the middle [4]. The produced water from the different
separators is combined and needs to be treated to be suitable for disposal or to be reinjected. The treatment
unit design depends on the future water application.
Similarly to the water processing scheme, the gas from the different separators needs to be commingled
in order to be treated before further application. The Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) allows to re-integrate the gas
from low pressure separators into the high pressure gas stream from the first stage separator [4]. The VRU
consists in several stages, each taking gas from the pressure level of production separator’s gas outlet and
previous VRU stage to the next separator pressure level. A typical VRU stage configuration (see Figure 2) is
characterised by a heat exchanger, to cool the gas, followed by a scrubber, to remove liquids, and finally a
compressor together with an anti-surge loop, to allow gas recirculation.
Similarly to the water processing scheme, the gas treatment design depends on its future application,
e.g. export, reinjection and/or gas lift. According to [3], a common gas treatment includes a dehydration column,
to reduce the water content, and a sweetening column or membrane sieve, to remove hydrogen sulphide and/or
carbon dioxide.
2.3 Gas compressors
Gas compressors are the hearth of any gas processing unit. There are several compressor models in the
market: positive displacement compressors such as reciprocating and rotary type, and dynamic compressors,
like axial and centrifugal type. The selection and design of the compressor model depends on where it is to be
installed, gas composition, system demand, expansion plans, initial cost, variable system parameters,
maintenance issues, power, reliability and personnel experience [5].
The compressors weight, size and power requirements are real concerns when designing the layout of
offshore installations. The first two are greatly affected by the compressor required flow capacity and its
construction materials. The compressor power requirement is a function of gas mass flow, head required and
efficiency. Centrifugal compressors can be driven by expansion, steam or gas turbines, combustion engines
and electric motors.
2.4 Power generation units
Floating platforms have several functional modules, the power generation unit is the one responsible to drive
the production system [3]. The power generation unit is usually composed by gas turbines and diesel engines,
which are used when gas is not available. New developments led to the creation of gas turbines equipped with
dual-fuel system. This is especially relevant at the beginning of operations or after a shutdown, when only liquid
hydrocarbons are available [6].
A major concern is the ability to quickly and efficiently install or repair the modular equipment at the
platform in order to save time and money. To assure the maximum uptime, these equipment should have high
availability and long periods between overhauls [7].
2.5 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) analysis
Deepwater environment employs leading edge engineering technology, which is characterized by complex
systems. A failure in these systems might compromise human life, damage the environment and affect the
economics of a project due to deferral production. To better characterise equipment and minimise economic
loss by reducing downtime, the industry implemented RAM analysis as a standard.
These studies are crucial before the decision about processing facilities design, since RAM has a direct
impact on profit through lost production and maintenance costs. RAM analysis application intends to increase
system productivity and profits, as well as to reduce the total life cycle cost.
 Reliability: Reliability is defined as the probability of survival after the unit/system operates for a
certain period of time under specific operational conditions [8]. It is logic that system reliability
depends on conditions of use (stress, load rate, environment), age and intrinsic factors, such as
quality and design of components [9]. The concept of reliability is closely linked with a binary
equipment condition of operational or not operational, however several equipment have a spectrum
of states between these two extremes. Consequently, it is essential to characterise the failure
possibilities and categorise the equipment condition as operational or not operational.
 SPE - H00278035 3

The processing facilities often require equipment to be installed in series and/or in parallel
configuration. When equipment is installed in series configuration, the greater number of
components leads to a reduction in system reliability [10]. The reliability of a system in series can be
calculated using Equation 1. On the other hand, parallel configuration creates equipment
redundancy, which in turn leads to an increase in overall system reliability. In this case, overall
reliability can be calculated through Equation 2.
𝑁

𝑅𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛 = ∏ 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝.𝑖 Equation 1

𝑖=1
𝑁

𝑅𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛 = 1 − ∏(1 − 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝.𝑖 ) Equation 2

𝑖=1

 Availability: Availability is a more powerful and useful concept than reliability since it is the
percentage of uptime over time horizon. Availability takes into account the entire equipment
downtime, therefore it is affected by reliability and maintainability [11]. The availability costs occur
when the equipment cannot perform its full duty for a specific period of time, which affect the capacity
of an installation to earn money. Furthermore, in a lato sensu, availability has associated an
economic and opportunity cost. If assumed that repairs start instantly after failure and there are no
hidden failures, steady state availability can be calculated using Equation 3.
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑜 𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = Equation 3
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑜 𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟
 Maintainability: System maintainability is linked to the capacity of a component to be maintained or
restored to a condition where it performs the required functions. It indicates how soon the system
can be repaired, which determines the downtime patterns.
Maintenance interventions can be preventive or corrective. Preventive maintenance aims to
keep an acceptable equipment status and might be scheduled based on equipment condition or on
expected reliability performance [12]. On the other hand, corrective maintenance is performed to
restore the operational condition by identifying, repairing and/or replacing a faulty component after
its failure.

2.5.1 Advanced RAM analysis

There is a vast range of tools and methods to estimate system availability, but only few are able to model the
dynamic dependencies between components and external factors. There are several well-known reliability tools,
such as fault tree analysis, failure mode and effect analysis and Markov chains.
However, for complex problems like the availability of FPSOs it is required an analysis beyond traditional
approaches. It implies modelling the flow of activities and logical interaction between components. Several
solutions have been developed, such as MAROS® software by Det Norsk Veritas (DNV) or Petri Net theory
coupled with Monte Carlo simulations [13].
2.6 Brazilian fiscal regime
Brazil is one of the largest oil producing countries from Deepwater and Ultra-Deepwater reservoirs. Therefore,
the Brazilian fiscal regime was used for the economic evaluation purpose of this project.
The Brazilian government contemplates two options for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons:
Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) and concession contract. The last is the most common regime to grant
the rights for oil and gas exploration and production in Brazil, it defines a government take in the form of
signature bonus, royalties, area rental tax and a Special Participation Tax (SPT).
The concession contract is celebrated between two parties, the Oil Company and the Agência Nacional do
Petroleo, Gas Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP), which represents the interest of the Brazilian state. The
companies have the contractual obligation of investing one percent of the gross revenue in research and
development projects in Brazil [14]. The area rental tax is paid from the first year of concession to the last year
of production, therefore not including the decommissioning period [15]. The SPT rate varies from 10% to 40%,
it is a function of location, production volume and year of production. In addition, royalties of 5% to 10% of the
gross revenue are paid monthly to the government. Finally, the company’s profit is taxed on 34% according to
the combined social contribution on net profit tax and corporate income tax. The Brazilian fiscal legislation allows
a tax shield scheme up to 34% of the annual taxable profit [16]. This implies that asset depreciation creates an
allowance which might be carried forward in time and be claimed when taxable revenues are generated.
 4 SPE - H00278035

3 Data Summary and Methods

3.1 Data summary
This project consists in a technical optimisation based on economic analysis. Along the project workflow,
different type of data was gathered and employed at different stages. The required input information is
summarised below.

3.1.1 Production profile

A production profile based on reservoir simulation has been supplied and used for technical and economic
purposes. The fluid processing models were based on peak production volumes since it is the period of greatest
capacity utilisation rate. The production profile has obvious implications in the economic model, on both positive
(revenues) and negative (costs) cash flows.

3.1.2 Fluid composition

The fluid composition is also a required input to perform fluid processing simulations. For this project, fluid
composition was extracted from a PVT analysis and the recombined fluid molar composition (P res=620bar and
Tres=70⁰C) can be seen in Figure 3.

3.1.3 Availability data

The steady state availability for a single equipment (compressor or gas turbine) was calculated using Equation
3 with reliability data from Oreda [17]. The availability of configurations with standby redundancy was calculated
using a binomial distribution. It is relevant to stress that system availability influences the processing capacity
of each configuration, which in turn impacts its power requirements.
Most of the modelled compressors are electrically driven (exception - CO2 compressors), therefore it is
compulsory to take into account the availability of gas turbines, which are a key component in power generation
units. Several gas turbine configurations with standby redundancy were also tested.
The overall system availability was calculated using Equation 2, by considering the compression
stations and power generation modules in series. This assumes that all component must complete their
functions to have a working process. This is a conservative approach since in reality there is operational
flexibility, which allows to minimise the impact of unavailability in certain parts of the system.

3.1.4 QUE$TOR assumptions

The cost estimation is a function of production and export systems, geographic region and production profiles.
To allow proper comparison between cases only the production profiles, power requirements and number of
gas compressors/gas turbines were adjusted accordingly. The other available schedule, technical and economic
parameters were kept unchanged for all cases.

3.1.5 Economic model assumptions

The economic model is influenced by several factors, some of them are imposed by the Brazilian government,
while others are guesstimated. According to the Brazilian concession contract [18], the company has a
production phase period limited to 27 years. It was assumed a pre and post-operational phase up to 6 years,
which guarantees 21 years of production.
CAPEX and OPEX data was retrieved from QUE$TOR®. On the other hand, revenues are a function of
oil and gas production profiles and price. As it is known, supply and demand forces dictate the price of
commodities in the international market. Based on World Bank’s commodity price forecast [19], the oil price was
assumed constant at a value of 55 USD/STB across the project timeframe. Since the natural gas market is
regional, it price was considered 7.3USD/MMBTU, which is the current selling price in Brazil [20].
The price inflation was considered 2.15% [21], which is USA inflation average for a 20 year period. The
exchange rate of Brazilian Real (BRL) to United Stated Dollar varies daily. For the sake of simplicity it was
assumed constant throughout project’s life at 3.13BRL/USD based on long term technical forecasts. The royalty
value was assumed at 10% and the combined social contribution and corporate income tax at 34%, as
previously discussed in section 2.6. It was decided to depreciate 100% of the CAPEX in the year of expense,
which generated a tax allowance that was carried forward in time until taxable revenues were generated.
A sinking fund was created to meet the abandonment expenditures. Assuming the unit of production
depreciation scheme for the reserves, the fund started when 75% of the reserves have been produced. The
fund’s yearly interest rate was defined at 10.5%, based on the Selic interest rate set by Brazilian Central Bank
[16]. The project’s discount rate should reflect its associated risks, as well as the capital acquisition and
opportunity costs. In the oil and gas industry there are intrinsic risks linked to geology, facilities, government
and economic uncertainties. The discount rate assumed for financial evaluation was 10%, which is in line with
the values applied by Petrobras and Galp in similar projects.
 SPE - H00278035 5

3.2 Methods
The compression station scheme should be optimised to maximise hydrocarbon recovery whilst minimising the
power requirements. One should stress that the number of compressors installed at each compression station,
as well as their arrangement have a noticeable impact on fuel consumption, processing capacity and availability
of the system.
The objective of this study was to understand the impact on project net present value by considering
different redundancy schemes for compression stations and gas turbines at the topside. Several cases were
created, the associated system availabilities were calculated and a workflow delineated in order to meet the
aforementioned goal. Each case starts with a fluid processing simulation in Aspen HYSYS ® using production
profiles that take into account processing facilities availability. Different cases generated distinct power
requirements, which demanded appropriate power generation units. CAPEX and OPEX were estimated using
QUE$TOR® and the project net present value calculated assuming the Brazilian concession regime. The data
analysis and conclusions were drawn comparing several case results against an industry standard case.
3.2.1 Definition of case studies
Eight case studies were defined based on a combination of four compression station configurations (A,B,C,D)
and two power generation unit configurations (1,2). The full picture of equipment configuration can be observed
in Table 1. To better contextualize the compression stations, these were identified in the fluid processing model
for case A1 (standard case) in Figure 4.

3.2.2 Fluid processing models

The above mentioned cases were modelled in HYSYS ®. It is important to stress that only active compressors
were created for simulation purposes since the reliability impact was taken into account in the input production
data. The simulation was performed for peak production, which is the period of greatest challenge at the
facilities. The different peak productions were calculated by multiplying peak production from reservoir simulator
by the overall system availability of each case.
In HYSYS ® the inlet stream was set at reservoir pressure, temperature and composition. The rate was
adjusted by an iterative process to meet the desired peak oil production at the LP separator. The next step was
to fine tune the gas oil ratio (GOR) by adjusting gas rate after a flash to standard conditions. The first liquid
separator was modelled as a gas-liquid separator because there is not enough residence time to have an
effective oil/water separation. The second and third stage separators are three phase separators, the last was
defined with a water carry over percentage in oil of 0.5%. Based in section 2.2, a heat exchanger and a scrubber
were installed before any compressor, in order to reduce stream temperature to 40⁰C and its liquid content,
respectively.
The MAIN A compression system brings the fluid to 54 bar before entering the GDU and the CO 2
membrane filter (see Figure 5). The last was designed as a component splitter, resulting a CO 2 stream with
approximately 50% of carbon dioxide and a sweet gas stream of mainly methane. The MAIN B system has two
stages to compress the sweet stream to 250 bar, which can be exported, used for gas lift or reintegrated in the
gas reinjection stream. The CO2 compression station was modelled with four stages and gas turbine driven
compressors. The CO2 rich stream is also compressed to 250 bar. Finally, a fraction of sweet gas stream is
reintegrated in CO2 stream and the resultant stream follows to REINJ compression system that brings gas to
550 bar, which is ready to be reinjected into the reservoir.
All compression stations with the exception of CO2, have installed electrically driven compressors.
Therefore, the power requirements for each case were determined after the simulation in HYSYS®. To account
for mechanical energy loss and further inefficiencies, a multiplier of 1.15 was applied to the power requirement
values.

3.2.3 Cost estimation model

The production profile input for costs estimation was adjusted accordingly to the system availability of each
case. It is also known that availability increases as the production rate decreases due to lower capacity utilisation
factor. The actual production profile calculation took this relationship into account by multiplying the ideal oil
production by the availability as a function of capacity utilisation factor.
Cost modelling was performed by adjusting the production profiles, power requirements and number of
gas compressors/gas turbines accordingly to each case. The other available schedule, technical and economic
parameters were kept constant for all cases.
It was considered a development concept of subsea wells tied back to a FPSO tanker unit with fluid
processing facilities located in the field. The export system for oil was considered ship to ship and for gas via
existing pipeline, considering a distance of 230 km to the onshore terminal.
 6 SPE - H00278035

3.2.4 Economic model

Once the production profiles were adjusted to account for availability and CAPEX/OPEX were estimated, it was
possible to run the economic model for each case.
The final step in this methodology consisted in project ranking by NPV. The NPV measures profit and
ranks projects by the largest profits, however it tells nothing about investment efficiency. Nevertheless, since
these cases (different equipment configuration schemes) are mutually exclusive, NPV was used to indicate the
maximum profit potential from the current opportunity.

4 Results
The results obtained following the proposed methodology are discussed next in four section: 1) Availability data
- used as input for the subsequent models; 2) Fluid processing models – allowed to determine the energy
requirements; 3) Cost estimation models – generated cost data to feed into the economic analysis; 4) Economic
models – used to rank the studied cases.
4.1 Availability data
The availability data was initially calculated for a single equipment (compressor and gas turbine). The next step
was the calculation of steady state availability for different equipment configurations, which was followed by the
computation of overall system availability. Finally, it was taken into account the variation of system availability
as a function of capacity utilisation factor.
Equipment availability
The availability for different configurations of compression stations and power generation modules was
calculated and can be seen in Figure 6. The steady-state availability value of a single electrically driven
centrifugal compressor is 99.32%. As discussing in the literature review, it is possible to observe that availability
increases when a standby redundant compressor is present.
System availability
The overall system availability was calculated using Equation 2, by considering the compression stations and
power generation modules in series. The overall system availability can be checked in Figure 7. Availability
increases as production rate decreases due to lower capacity utilisation factor. The availability dependency of
compressor capacity utilisation factor was studied for each case and can be seen in Figure 9.
4.2 Fluid processing model results
Fluid processing simulation was performed for peak oil production since it is the period of greatest energy
requirement. Each case was simulated in HYSYS®. According to the described methodology, the power
requirements were calculated for each case and can be observed in Figure 8.
4.3 Cost estimation model results
The production profiles and estimated costs can be observed for case C2 in Figure 10. Taking into account the
production profiles, power requirement, number of compressors and gas turbines of each case, it was possible
to estimate profiles of capital and operational expenses. A summary of CAPEX and OPEX for several cases
can observe in Figure 11.
4.4 Economic model results
The revenues are inherently linked with fluid production, which in turn depends on system availability. In Figure
12 it is possible to observe the relationship for each case between gross revenue, total oil production, and
average system availability. A clear comparison of CAPEX and OPEX for each case can be seen in Figure 13.
The NPV was calculated and employed to rank them according to their maximum profit potential from the current
opportunity. A summary of topside weight and NPV can be observed in Figure 14.
4.5 Uncertainty analysis
The assumptions and data used in this project have associated some degree of uncertainty. In Figure 15 it is
possible to observe a schematic representation of the uncertainty roots and possible error propagation. One of
the greatest uncertainties is obviously related to reservoir modelling and deliverability prediction. In order to
understand the impact of uncertainties on NPV, several sensitivity analysis were performed in key parameters
for case C2.
The impact of economic assumptions is presented in Figure 16 (left). On the other hand, the effect of
uncertainties associated to costs estimation (QUE$TOR ®), power requirements prediction (HYSYS®),
availability calculation and production profile guesstimation can be seen Figure 16 (right).
 SPE - H00278035 7

5 Discussion
This study assumed that all compression stations are installed in series configuration. This was a conservative
approach since in reality there is operational flexibility, which allows to minimise the impact of unavailability in
certain parts of the system. It was possible to establish a relationship between system availability and fluid
production that took into account the increase in system redundancy (and associated overall availability) with
depletion (decrease in reservoir deliverability), refer to Figure 9.
In Figure 12 cases A2 and D2 have a lower average system availability than cases A1 and D1. Yet,
cases A2 and D2 have larger gross revenues due to greater availability (implies more production) at the higher
capacity utilisation factors (see Figure 9). The same rationale applies to compare cases B1 and C1 with cases
B2 and C2.
The cost modelling results allowed to identify two major issues. Gas turbines in 3x50% configuration
occupies less space and has lower acquisition and maintenance costs than in 4x33% configuration (see Figure
13). The second issue is related to compressor costs, which are a function of quantity and power requirements.
From Figure 11 one can see that cases B2 and C2 differ in the number of VRU’s compressors and respective
power requirements. Although case C2 has greater number of compressors, the power requirement is inferior
(due to lower peak oil production that is a function of availability) which leads to a reduced acquisition and
maintenance cost, as well as less topside weight. On the other hand, comparing cases C2 and D2 (see Figure
11 and Figure 13) it is possible to see that D2 has less compressors and lower power requirement, nevertheless
OPEX and topside weight are greater than for case C2. This occurs because case C2 modifications are on
VRU’s compressors configuration, which only process 20120 sM 3/h (require approximately 1MW), while case
D2 changes are on MAIN A/B compressor stations that process 118600 sM 3/h of gas (require roughly 9MW).
One can identify from Figure 14 that case C2 is the best option to maximize the profit potential from this
opportunity. This case has a NPV 11% greater than industry standard case (A1), while topside weight is roughly
the same (+0.5%). The positive result is a consequence of greater revenues from more fluid production
(outcome of higher availability) and lower acquisition/maintenance costs (Figure 13) associated to a new gas
turbine configuration of 3x50%. Since this case has 2 VRU’s station with 3 compressors each, it is important to
remind that topside space occupancy might constrain the application of the optimum equipment scheme
concept.
In this project, reliability data was used to calculate steady-state availability, which assumes that repairs
start instantly after failure and there are no hidden failures. Given the importance of availability accuracy, in
future projects this simplistic approach should be upgraded to a method that allows to model the dynamic
dependencies of different components and external factors. As reviewed in section 2.5.1, Petri Net theory
coupled with Monte Carlo simulations can be applied to model the flow of activities and logical interactions
between components in complex systems.

6 Conclusions and suggestions for future work

This work confirmed the close relationship between equipment availability and project net present value. This
relationship seems obvious, but it is complex and has many intrinsic variables.
To optimise fluid production capitalization, the system configuration should be arranged to maximise
availability as a function of the greatest and most frequent working capacity utilisation factor interval.
The gas turbine configuration with lower acquisition and maintenance costs is 3x50%, which is also the
one that weighs less, occupies smaller space and provides higher availability.
The cost of extra-availability by adjusting the number or configuration of compressors needs to be
compensated by revenues from additional fluid production. Compression stations cost optimisation is a function
of compressor’s quantity and power requirement.
Case C2 is the best option to maximize the profit potential from this opportunity. It has a NPV 11%
greater than industry standard case (A1), while topside weight is roughly the same (+0.5%).
Assumptions and data used in this project have associated some degree of uncertainty. The results
should be analysed with caution and keeping in mind the roots of uncertainty and possible error propagation.
Sensitivity analysis shown that project net present value is extremely sensitive to oil price, production profile
and availability values.
Recommendations for future work
There are several possibilities to upgrade this technical study. A conservative approach was taken by not
considering operational flexibility. An important upgrade to this study is consider operational flexibility and
understand its impact on the overall system availability, since its implementation allows to minimise the effect
of unavailability of certain equipment.
The sensitivity analysis has shown that NPV is extremely sensitive to production profile and availability
values. Availability estimation can be optimised by applying advanced RAM analysis techniques. MAROS ®
software from DNV is a possible solution. Other suitable methods were discussed in section 2.5.1.
 8 SPE - H00278035

Study the benefits of remote real time performance monitoring. Gathering and transmitting compressor
performance data allows to have a proactive operating approach, which brings closer the overarch goal of
continuous runtime at peak production.
Investigate the effect of implementing a more efficient energy compression scheme. To maximise wasted
energy recovery, the thermal energy from hot discharge gas should be converted to electrical energy using
refrigerant fluid in a closed system coupled to a turbine generator.

7 References
[1] BP energy outlook (2017), BP.
[2] World energy resources – Oil (2016), World energy council.
[3] Davies, D. (2016) – Production Technology. Heriot-Watt University. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
[4] Devold, H. (2013) Oil and gas production handbook – An introduction to oil and gas production, transport,
refining and petrochemical industry. ABB, Oslo, Norway.
[5] Darazz, A. et al. (2013) What is the Best Compressor for Our Applications, Centrifugal or Reciprocating. SPE
Kuwait Oil and Gas show and conference, Mishref, Kuwait. SPE 167292.
[6] Milburn, F. et al. (2001) Hoover/Diana: Topsides. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
OTC 13083.
[7] Power on board – Gas turbine modules for FPSO’s. (2008) Oil and gas division, Energy sector, Siemens
AG. Earlangen, Germany.
[8] E. E. Lewis. (1994) Introduction to Reliability Engineering, Second Edi. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[9] Corvaro F. et al. (2016) Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM) study on reciprocating compressors
API 618. Universita Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
[10] P. 0’Connor and A. Kleyner. (2012) Practical Reliability Engineering, 5th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[11] Kurz, R. et al. (2012) Concepts in Gas Compressor Station Configuration. International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. IPTC 14424.
[12] Jardine, A., Lin D. et al. (2006) A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-
based maintenance. Mechanical system and signal processing, volume 20, number 7.
[13] A. Teixeira and C. Soares (2009) Modelação e Análise da Disponibilidade de Produção de Sistemas por
Redes Petri Estocásticas.
[14] IOGP (2017) - Overview of International Offshore Decommissioning Regulations, Volume 1 – Facilities.
International Association of Oil &Gas Producers.
[15] Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. (2015) Edital 13ª Rodada de Licitações –
Blocos Exploratórios.
[16] KPMG (2016) - A Guide to Brazilian Oil & Gas Taxation.
[17] OREDA (2015) Offshore and Onshore reliability data. Volume 1 – Topside Equipment, Edition 6, pages 59-
110.
[18] Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. (2010) Contracto de concessão,
desenvolvimento e produção de gás natural. Ministério de minas e energia da República Federativa do Brasil.
[19] World Bank. (2017) World Bank Commodities Price Forecast.
[20] Petrobras. (2017) Investidor - Preços e custos. http://www.investidorpetrobras.com.br/pt/destaques-
operacionais/precos-e-custos - website accessed in November 2017.
[21] Trading economics. (2017) - Inflation rate in United States of America. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-
states/inflation-cpi website accessed in November 2017.
 SPE - H00278035 9

8 Appendix
8.1 Literature Review

8.1.1 Production platform and processing scheme

Figure 1 - Typical gas, oil and water processing scheme. [3]

8.1.2 Vapour recovery unit

Figure 2 - Typical arrangement of a VRU stage. [5]

8.2 Data summary and methodology

8.2.1 Fluid composition

Figure 3 - Recombined fluid composition.

 10 SPE - H00278035

8.2.2 Definition of case studies

Table 1 - Equipment configuration of each case study.

VRU LP VRU MP MAIN A MAIN B CO2 REINJ Gas turbines

A 1x100% 1x100% 3x50% 3x50% 4x50% 2x100% 1 4x33%
B 2x100% 2x100% 3x50% 3x50% 4x50% 2x100% 2 3x50%
C 3x50% 3x50% 3x50% 3x50% 4x50% 2x100%
D 1x100% 1x100% 2x100% 2x100% 4x50% 2x100%

Figure 4 - Compression station identification for standard case.

8.2.3 Fluid processing models

Figure 5 - Part of gas treatment model for standard case.

8.3 Results

Figure 6 - Equipment steady-state availability.

SPE - H00278035 11

Figure 7 - Steady-state overall system availability.

Figure 9 - Availability as a function of capacity utilisation factor.

Figure 8 - Power requirements for each simulated case.

Figure 10 - Case C2: production profiles and CAPEX/OPEX estimation.

12 SPE - H00278035

CAPEX OPEX

Figure 11 - Cost modelling data: CAPEX (left) and OPEX (right).

Figure 12 - Relationship of gross revenue, cumulative oil production and average system availability.

Figure 13 - Total CAPEX and OPEX for each studied case.

SPE - H00278035 13

Figure 14 - Summary of topside weight and NPV.

Figure 15 - Uncertainty sources and propagation effect schematic representation.

Figure 16 - Case C2 sensitivity analysis to economic assumptions (left) and technical uncertainties (right).