EPT delivering breakthrough solutions Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool John Edwards Head of Projects Emissions Asset.

EPTdelivering breakthrough solutions

Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P OperationsGHG Forecast Tool

John Edwards

Head of ProjectsEmissions Asset Business

Accurate GHG Forecasts: Why ?

• Company Climate Commitments

– Monitoring Progress And Making Appropriate Interventions

• Emissions Markets

– Understand Future Cost Implications

– Plan

– Make Interventions

• Increasing Focus On Carbon and Its Management.

– Likely Carbon Will have A Cost In Most Places

– Reputation

– Responsible Corporate Behaviour

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Mil

lio

n T

on

nes

BP GHG Emissions From E&P Segment

Commitment 1 in 1998

Reduce Emissions By 10% by 2010

Commitment 2 in 2002

Hold 2001 Flat To 2012………

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Mil

lio

n T

on

nes

Forecast

Accurate GHG Forecasts: Why ?

• Company Climate Commitments

– Monitoring Progress And Making Appropriate Interventions

• Increasing Focus On Carbon and Its Management.

– Likely Carbon Will have A Cost In Most Places

– Reputation

– Responsible Corporate Behaviour

• Emissions Markets

– Understand Future Cost Implications

– Plan

– Make Interventions

How To Produce Accurate Forecasts?

Flows Through Facility

No of Trains & Plant Loading

Performance Curve to give power requirement

No of Turbines & Loading

Part-load Efficiency Curves

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Percentage Loading

Eff

icie

ncy

(%

)

RB211 (6562G)

Avon

Frame 5 (5371PA)

Frame 6

Frame 7

LM1600

LM2500

LM2500+

LM6000

Mars 100

Saturn 20

Centaur 50

Taurus 60

Tornado

TB5000

Performance Curveto give energy requirement

Fuel Gas Propertiesto give CO2

CO2 Profile

CO2 Cost

Energy CostEnergy Metrics

Schematic Of Forecaster Tool

Outputs

Forecasts For:

Fuel FlowFuel Cost

CO2 EmissionsCO2 Cost

Performance IndicatorsEquipment LoadingEquipment Performance

Process Modules

Compression Turbines and Drivers Pumps

Flow DataOil Flow Gas FlowGas InjectionWater InjectionFlare EstimateVent Estimate

Other DataMisc Electrical LoadsMisc Thermal LoadsAmbient ConditionsRunning StandbyDowntimeDays on Diesel FuelFuel Gas AnalysisFuel Gas PriceCO2 Price Forecast

Facility Model

Model Requires 3 Input Elements

Flow Profiles

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Pro

du

ctio

n m

bo

/d

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Inje

ctio

n &

Lif

t m

b/d

Gas Export

Oil Export

Water Injection

Seaw ater Lift

Modelling the installed equipment and its operational characteristics

Profiles of the flows that cause energy to be consumed in the major equipment

Operational factors: running standby capacity, ambient conditions, fuel composition, fuel / CO2 prices,

miscellaneous not modelled issues e.g. flare, thermal loads, general power etc

Tool converts this data entry into

• Equipment running and its loading

• Equipment efficiency and its power requirement

• Turbine loading and fuel requirement

• CO2 emissions, energy requirement profiles and associated costs

Input Screen Examples

Separate Entry Tab For Each Unit Operation

Each compressor or pump characterised by peak throughput and peak power requirement

Driver can be motor or turbine from drop down list

Driver can drive any combination of compression stages

Flow Profiles Input Tab

Gas Export and Interstage Flows

Gas Injection

Oil Export

Water Injection (2 Trains)

Flare

Vent

Diesel (for miscellaneous duties e.g. crane, fire pumps)

Period Usually annual for initial runs

Can amend inputs to give multiple scenarios in a year - increases accuracye.g. ambient temperature change, fuel change, equipment downtime etc.

Miscellaneous Data

Miscellaneous inputs e.g:-

• loads not calculated in tool eg thermal requirements

• ambient conditions

• cost data

Output screen

Illustration of typical output screen for selected period

Traffic Light Performance

Visual Indication of Installed Plant

Number of Trains In Operation

Breakdown of Power Use By Operation

Report Options: Energy, CO2, Cost

Detailed Report by Period

Button for ChartsData Export etc

Confirmation of Accuracy and Application

InstallationPredicted

CO2Actual CO2 Difference %

A 455,764 448,000 7,764 1.7%

B 269,961 253,953 16,008 5.9%

C 286,424 288,570 -2,146 -0.7%

D 211,389 202,679 8,710 4.1%

E 543,156 543,007 149 0.1%

• Tool tested “blind” using historical production data to give forecast and compared with what was reported

• Results very acceptable, within 5%, once main scenarios accounted for

• Usually needed a couple of hours to produce the results if accessed the right people from the operation: process engineer / production planning

• Once configured, very quick forecast updates available as production / operational changes are predicted.

• Future GHG forecast “error” will be due to differences in production / operational actuals v forecast, not GHG methodology

Initial Lessons Learned

• Great value in having an accurate, consistent, robust, transparent model for

ghg forecasting.

• Concern about basing calculations on daily flows = annual flow / 365

when there were usually a number of periods in the year where the operating

conditions would have influenced performance

• Therefore needed scenario modelling and aggregation: Excel output

• For some facilities we needed more functionality

•e.g. interstage gas flow, spinning reserve etc

• A lot of invaluable information being generated but not displayed.

• Tremendous potential for option appraisal in facility design

• Needed To Develop a “Mk 2” updated version

Who Will Use?Initially GHG Forecaster

• Designed to get a balance between simplicity and accuracy

• Focus on use by Energy/ Environmental Engineer

– Minimal training required

– Can then do own options appraisal & sensitivity studies

• Does not need Process/Mechanical Engineer to run

– Already incorporated in model

• Max ½ day population and running

Updated Tool

• Concept Developer

• Project Development Team

• Operations Engineer

Use Of Forecaster For Option Appraisal

ProductionForecasts

Concepts & Options Appraisal

Option 1

Option 3

Option 2 BAT

Technology Options

Power Import CCGT GT vs Motor Drive No of trains

Sensitivities

Plant & Ops OptionsDifferent Gas TurbinesSpinning ReserveUncertaintiesProduction Forecasts CO2 Trading Value Fuel Price Fuel Gas CompositionDays on Diesel

Outputs

Fuel & CO2 CostEnergy KPIsPlant Load ProfilesEmissions Profiles

Use Of Forecaster For Option Appraisal

Example of a North Sea Facility:

• Mature asset

• 2 oversized turbine generators, both running for security of supply

• Turbine driven gas export and “mid life” compression

• EUETS trading exposure $1m

• Asset model developed for GHG forecasting

Consider impact of :

• Right size turbines: Power Generation

• Single turbine operation: Power Generation

• Change from Mars turbines to electric compression on LP (midlife compressors)

Base Case: Current Operation

Turbine 34% loaded

MP Compression stage on recycle: HP is OK

If motor driven soon able to turn of a train

CO2 Emissions Forecast

Saving Potential

Driver Change 15kTe/y

Motor Drives 22kTe/y

Single GT Op 23kTe/y

All Electric 62kTe/y

580,000

600,000

620,000

640,000

660,000

680,000

700,000

2009 2010 2011 2012

To

nn

es C

O2 Current

Driver Change

Motor Drive

Single GT

All electric

Saving From MP Compressor Shutdown

Analysis Shows

• 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 compressionMotor drive would save $3.8m / year, could spend up to $20m capex

• 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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Driver Change Motor Drive Single GT Op All Electric

Mill

ion

Dol

lars

Fuel

CO2

Fuel Cost$7/mmBtu

CO2 Cost$29/ tonne

Conclusions

• Possible To Achieve GHG Forecasts Within 5% Of Actual Emissions- subject to production forecasts being correct- for conventional centralised, eg offshore, operations

• Invaluable Having Consistent & Transparent Estimation Methodology

•Forecast Updates Take A Few Minutes- ie converting throughput forecasts to GHG forecasts

• Excellent Tool For Option Appraisal In Concept / Project Development- technology selection, driver selection, number of trains- inclusion of energy & CO2 costs enable quick viability assessment

- enables a life cycle approach to project development

• Has Application In Existing Operations Optimisation- standby plant operation, plan compressor re-wheeling, reducing running GTs- enables high level performance benchmarking

• Off The Shelf Product Available To All E&P Companies- Tool released through PI Energy & Emissions