Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ostinmannual
developing rigorous ghg forecasts for e p operations ghg forecast tool l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool

play fullscreen
1 / 20
Download Presentation
Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool
295 Views
Download Presentation

Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P Operations GHG Forecast Tool

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing Rigorous GHG Forecasts For E&P OperationsGHG Forecast Tool John Edwards Head of ProjectsEmissions Asset Business

  2. 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

  3. BP GHG Emissions From E&P Segment Forecast Commitment 1 in 1998 Reduce Emissions By 10% by 2010 Commitment 2 in 2002 Hold 2001 Flat To 2012………

  4. 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

  5. How To Produce Accurate Forecasts? Flows Through Facility No of Trains & Plant Loading Performance Curve to give power requirement CO2 ProfileCO2 Cost Energy CostEnergy Metrics Performance Curveto give energy requirement No of Turbines & Loading Fuel Gas Propertiesto give CO2

  6. Schematic Of Forecaster Tool Facility Model

  7. Model Requires 3 Input Elements 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. Miscellaneous Data • Miscellaneous inputs e.g:- • loads not calculated in tool eg thermal requirements • ambient conditions • cost data

  11. 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

  12. Confirmation of Accuracy and Application • 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Use Of Forecaster For Option Appraisal Option 1 Concepts & Options Appraisal Production Forecasts BAT Option 2 Option 3 Sensitivities Plant & Ops Options Different Gas Turbines Spinning Reserve Uncertainties Production Forecasts CO2 Trading Value Fuel Price Fuel Gas Composition Days on Diesel Technology Options Power Import CCGT GT vs Motor Drive No of trains Outputs Fuel & CO2 Cost Energy KPIs Plant Load Profiles Emissions Profiles

  16. 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)

  17. 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

  18. CO2 Emissions Forecast Saving Potential Driver Change 15kTe/y Motor Drives 22kTe/y Single GT Op 23kTe/y All Electric 62kTe/y Saving From MP Compressor Shutdown

  19. 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 Fuel Cost$7/mmBtu CO2 Cost$29/ tonne

  20. 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