Upstream Oil & Gas Plant

Performance
Benchmarking, Auditing
and Simulation
Don Colley, P.Eng.
DGC Consulting Ltd.

Dr. Bill Svrcek, P.Eng

University of Calgary

GPAC April 15, 2005

Introduction
This presentation will include:
Performance Benchmarking
Energy and Environmental Audits
Process Simulation

Tools for Energy Cost Optimization

DGC Consulting/UofC

Performance Benchmarking
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Facility, process and equipment benchmarking
Energy KPIs
Environmental KPIs

UOG Applications
Monitoring and Tracking Performance
Screening and Assessing Facilities
Continuous Improvement Target Setting

UOG Examples
Sour Gas and Sweet Gas
Conventional Oil and Heavy Oil
DGC Consulting/UofC

KPI Structure
All based on production data:
Numerator: Item of interest in units of
energy, mass or volume
Denominator: Total energy equivalent
production
Small and decreasing value is good
Large and increasing value is bad
DGC Consulting/UofC

Energy Equivalent Production

Denominator calculated as the sum of:
Total gas production
Total gas liquids production
Total oil production
Total sulphur production
Total exported power
Total exported heat energy

EEP expressed as GJ or BOE

DGC Consulting/UofC

Items Benchmarked
Numerator can be:
Energy consumption
Carbon dioxide emissions
Sulphur dioxide emissions
Fresh water consumption
Produced water disposal
Sand production
DGC Consulting/UofC

Operational Decoupling
Plant Total Energy Intensity (PTEI) =
Plant Processing Energy Intensity, PPEI
Compression or Pumping Intensity, C/PEI
Plant Flare Energy Intensity, PFEI
Plant Vent Energy Intensity, PVEI

Field Gathering Energy Intensity (FGEI)

Total Energy Intensity = PTEI + FGEI
DGC Consulting/UofC

Monitoring & Tracking

Performance
Performance Indicators with Targets can be
set up to effectively monitor plant, process or
equipment performance
Indicators can have low and high flags
DCS availability means operators can take
immediate action to correct problems or
schedule maintenance
DGC Consulting/UofC

Facility Level Benchmarking

(Applied to over 30 UOG facilities)

Sour Gas Processing Plants

Sweet Gas Processing Plants
Conventional Oil and Solution Gas Batteries
Gathering Systems
EOR Heavy Oil Projects

DGC Consulting/UofC

DGC Consulting/UofC
pN

ov

4
04
04

v-

ct
-0

BVEI

No

et
04

rg

04

p-

Ta

ug

Se

nA

BFEI

Se

Ja

g0

l- 0

BPEI

Ju
Au

BTEI

Av

Av

-0

n04

ay

-0
4

r- 0

ar

Ju

04

b04

n-

Ap

Fe

Ja

In ten sity, G J/G J

Energy Intensity
Bty/FldTEI
BCompEI

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

Fe
b04
M
ar
-0
4
A
pr
-0
4
M
ay
-0
4
Ju
n04
Ju
l-0
4
A
ug
-0
4
Se
p04
O
ct
-0
4
N
ov
-0
4
D
ec
-0
4
A
ve
20
04
Ja
n05
Fe
A
ve
b05
Ja
nFe
b
05
Ta
rg
et

04

n-

Ja

Intensity, GJ/GJ

Gas Plant and Gathering Systems Energy Intensity

GP TEI
GP PEI
GP FEI
GS#1 TEI

DGC Consulting/UofC

GS#2 TEI
GP/GS TEI

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Process/Equipment KPIs
Gas Compressor or Oil/Water Pump
EI = Energy Input / EEP

Amine System
EI = Reboiler Energy Input / EEP

DGC Consulting/UofC

Integrated Production
Intensities
Wellhead to Point-of-Sale Intensity examples
Sour Gas (field operations, plant processing and
field & sales compression)
Cold Heavy Oil (well operation, trucking and
processing)
Thermal Heavy Oil (SAGD and conventional
thermal production facility)
DGC Consulting/UofC

Sour Gas SR, Field+Processing

Sour Gas SR, Processing

Heavy Oil Cold, Field+Processing

Heavy Oil Cold, Processing

Heavy Oil Thermal, Field+Processing

Heavy Oil Thermal, Processing

192.0

Energy Intensity, GJ/E3GJ

200
160
120
90.9
80
40

60.4
30.2
5.0

DGC Consulting/UofC

6.6

Operational Auditing
Purpose
Identify opportunities to reduce fuel gas and
electricity costs and improve operational efficiency

Team
Defining the objectives and scope of work defines
the team requirements

Results are opportunities to:

Reduce energy consumption
Optimized product yield
Minimize emissions
DGC Consulting/UofC

Typical Audit Schedule

Scope and expertise selection

1-2 wks

Budget development and approval

4-6 wks

Scheduling of field work

4-8 wks

Data collection and field preparation

2-4 wks

Field work

1-5 days

Field debriefing

1-4 hrs

Report Preparation

4-8 wks

Report presentation or final debriefing

Follow up support

1-4 hrs
As required

DGC Consulting/UofC

DGC Consulting/UofC

Oil Battery Results

Situation:
Oil battery with excess pump capacity for disposal of produced water. With
no speed control on pump, throughput is controlled with a throttle valve.
Current conditions:
Capacity: 125 m3/h @ 14,270 kPa design, 78 m3/h @ 16,540 kPa actual,
throttled to 8,960 kPa discharge; 670 kW motor with 519 kW actual
consumption.
EE Opportunity:
Restage the pump and remove the throttle valve to match actual flow
volume conditions or install a VFD to control motor and pump speed.
New Conditions:
78 m3/h @ 8,960 kPa with no throttle valve.
Cost: Option 1: Restaging pump estimated at $25,000
Option 2: Install a VFD at $250,000.
Annual Savings: $125,000/y
250 kW @ $60/MWh and 350 d/y

Payout: Option 1: 3 months

Option 2: 2 years

DGC Consulting/UofC

DGC Consulting/UofC

Sour Gas Production Results

Current conditions:
Amine flow at 72 m3/h @ 46 wt% requiring 5570 kW of reboiler duty. Heat
medium heater @70% efficiency consumes fuel gas at $2,200,000/y.
EE Opportunity:
Stepwise reductions in both amine re-circulation rate and amine strength
until target operating conditions are achieved.
New Conditions:
Option 1: 45 m3/h @ 46 wt%.
Option 2: 35 m3/h @ 40 wt%.

Cost:
Option 1: Nil
Option 2: Nil.

Annual Savings:
Option 1: 3800 kW @ $5.25/GJ and 350 d/y for $600,000/y
Option 2: 5200 kW @ $5.25/GJ and 350 d/y for $825,000/y
Payout: Option 1: 0 months
Option 2: 0 years
Note: Fuel gas saved become gas sales.
DGC Consulting/UofC

Sour Gas Production Results

Current conditions:
Gas plant with reboilers, heaters, incinerators and gas engines operating with
excess air levels of up to 150%.
EE Opportunity:
Heater: Operating at 24% excess air.
TEG Reboiler: Operating at 140 EA
Incinerator: Operating at 115% EA
Gas Engine: Operating at 30% EA

New Conditions:
Heaters: 10-15% EA.
Gas Engine: 2.4-9.5% EA.

Cost: Nil
Annual Savings: $49,000/y
@ $5.25/GJ and 350 d/y

Payout: Option 1: 0 months

Option 2: 0 years

Note: Fuel gas saved become gas sales.

DGC Consulting/UofC

Potential Savings vs Plant Energy Cost (CETAC Project)

FG & EE Cost Savings
GHG Emission Reductions

GHG Emission Reductions

FG & EE Cost Savings

40%
35%

Potential Savings

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

Annual Fuel Gas and Electric Pow er Energy Cost (16 plants)

DGC Consulting/UofC

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Simulation Tool

Objective
Performance targets
Process modeling and optimization
Case studies
Results and discussion
Conclusions

DGC Consulting/UofC

Process Modeling & Optimization

Objective is to optimize operations
based on specific criteria
Energy
Product Yield
Environmental

And set performance targets for the:

Facility
Process
Equipment

DGC Consulting/UofC

Process Modeling & Optimization

For gas plants we must consider:

Specific Configurations
Individual Processing Units
Granularity
DGC Consulting/UofC

Gas Plant Without Recycle

DGC Consulting/UofC

Gas Plant Without Recycle

DGC Consulting/UofC

Gas Plant With Recycle

DGC Consulting/UofC

Gas Plant With Recycle

DGC Consulting/UofC

TEG Dehydration Unit

Sales Gas

M1
Lean_TEG

TEG_Make_Up
Hx2
P1

Flash_Tank_Gas_Higher_Heating_Value

Still_Vent_Higher_Heating_Value

Saturated_Raw_Gas
Tower

Saturated_Gas_Higher_Heating_Value

Glycol_Gas_Contactor

V1
Sep1
Hx1

Tower

Teg_Regenerator

DGC Consulting/UofC

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10
Residual Mositure(lbH2O/MMSCF)
BTEX Emission (lb/hr)

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Glycol Rate (gpm )

DGC Consulting/UofC

3.5

4.5

BTEX Emission (lb/hr)

Residual Moisture (lbH2O/MMSCF)

Residual Water and BTEX Emissions as a Function of Glycol Rate

450

0.45

400

0.4

350

0.35

300

0.3

250

0.25

200

0.2

150

0.15

100

0.1

Energy Input to Reboiler ('000' BTU/h)

PEI (%)

50

0.05

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Glycol Rate (gpm )

DGC Consulting/UofC

3.5

4.5

PEI (%)

Energy Input to Reboiler ('000' BTU/h)

Energy Input to Reboiler and PEI as a Function of Glycol Rate

Benefits
Eco-efficiency indicators can be imbedded
into simulators as tools to optimize
performance
Key indicator targets related to energy
intensity are established
Process modeling provides a means to
examine existing plant configurations and
examine other options for energy optimization

DGC Consulting/UofC

Benefits
Plant age, feed and product yield along with
technology can be taken into account when
performing comparisons, setting targets or
benchmarking performance
Management can select facility level KPIs to
monitor performance against corporate goals
Operators can be provided with effective
guidance
Simulation tools can be effectively used with
audits to improve operational efficiency
DGC Consulting/UofC

Presentation Summary
In this presentation we have examined tools for:
Improving Operational Efficiency.
They include:
Performance Benchmarking using KPIs
Energy and Environmental Audits
Process Simulation
DGC Consulting/UofC

DGC Consulting/UofC

Acknowledgement
Components of this presentation were developed as part of a CETAC-West
Integrated Audit and Benchmarking Program

Discussion

DGC Consulting/UofC

References

Upstream Oil & Gas Plant Benchmarking, D.G. Colley, CSChE

2004.
Eco-efficiency Benchmarking and Modeling to Optimize Natural
Gas Plant Operational Efficiency, D.G. Colley, W.Y. Svrcek and
B.R. Young, CSChE 2004.
Eco-efficiency Benchmarking and Modeling to Optimize Natural
Gas Plant Operational Efficiency, D.G. Colley, W.Y. Svrcek and
B.R. Young, HP, January 2005.
Energy and Emission Optimization of the Glycol Dehydrator
Process, D.G. Colley, W.Y. Svrcek and H Adam, 1992 GRI
Glycol Dehydrator Air Emission Conference.

DGC Consulting/UofC