Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Stefano Magi
EniExploration and Production,
San Donato Milanese (Mi) 20097, Italy
Giuseppe Gorla
Stefano Biffi
Paolo Siboni
Tecnomare,
Milano 20139, Italy
Gianluca Valenti
Matteo C. Romano
Antonio Giuffrida
Emanuele Negri
Ennio Macchi
Politecnico di Milano,
Milano 20156, Italy
Introduction
Table 1 Stream information for the four gas pipelines currently in operation converging to one of the three plant inlets
depending on the gas pressure. Roughly 2% of the inlet gas is
used as fuel gas within the plant.
Pipeline No.
Plant inlet
Flow
kSm3 / day
Pressure
bar
Temperature
C
1
2
3
4
LP
IP
HP
HP
210220
15003000
230270
2535
810
2224
5560
6070
2025
1520
2025
2025
2
pressure of the gas streams from depleted reservoirs is presented.
At first, a brief description of the plant layout and of its working
conditions is given, and then the criticalities and the modifications
are outlined. The simulation of the process is depicted in a dedicate section, including a validation against field data. The discussion of the proposed solutions is based on the first and the second
laws of thermodynamics as well as on economic and environmental comparisons.
This paper is a description of the first phase of a field project
conducted by Eni, Tecnomare, and Politecnico di Milano. The
main goals of the project are the development of an internal standardized procedure for i revamping existing oil and gas treatment facilities and ii providing the operators of those facilities
with tools for taking on-time decisions. In this phase, the revamping options of a gas facility are investigated. In a second phase,
those of an oil facility are instead investigated. According to the
gained experience, the internal procedure is prepared afterwards.
In the last optional phase, the developed process simulation tools
are transferred to the analyzed gas and oil facilities for the on-line
modeling by the acquisition of field data. Eni, a major Italian oil
and gas company, is the owner of the plants and the project leader.
As the leader, Eni coordinated the work and managed the information flow. Tecnomare is an engineering company within the Eni
group that executed the process simulation and contacted the suppliers for technoeconomical offers. Politecnico di Milano is a
technical university that developed the methodology for the analysis, defined the modifications, and consulted Tecnomare in detailing the simulation.
#gas Grid
H.P. wells
Unit
LP-IP
gas turbine
IP-HP
gas turbine
kW
%
2
1
Simple cycle
1185
24.4
4
12
Recuperative
5180
34.7
The gas treatment facility here analyzed was built in the late
1960s and modified 2 decades ago. It processes natural gas from a
number of fields connected via six pipelines. Currently only four
pipelines are in operation and their flow rates are much lower than
originally. Pipelines differ for pressures and rates see Table 1,
whereas temperatures and compositions are quite similar
15 25 C and basically pure methane saturated with water. The
flow rates of pipelines numbered 1, 3, and 4 are dictated by the
reservoir behaviors and are relatively constant over time. In contrast, the rate of Pipeline 2, by far the most relevant, is established
by marketing decisions and it falls in a wide interval, even though
most of the year it varies in a narrow window. Depending on their
pressures, the pipelines are converged to one of the three plant
inlet lines, identified as low pressure LP 810 bars, intermediate pressure IP 2224 bars, and high pressure HP line 5570
bars. The plant has a single outlet pipeline, which is connected to
the national gas network Fig. 1. Within the plant, roughly 2% of
the inlet gas is used as fuel gas.
Given the high quality of the inlet natural gas, the facility accomplishes two tasks: i pressurizing the LP and IP streams to an
outlet condition of 5070 bars and ii dehydrating all the streams
to a dew point of 10 C. Compression is obtained via turbomachines, dehydration via triethylene glycol TEG regenerated with
direct fuel gas burners. All compressors are equipped with aircoolers at their outlets. The plant accommodates two low-tointermediate pressure compressors identified with LP-IP and
four intermediate-to-high pressure compressors IP-HP, each
driven by a dedicated gas turbine see Table 2. The LP-IP tur-
50-60 bar
Exhaust
Dehydration
Unit
60-70 bar
Exhaust
#el
Fuel
Glycol
Regeneration
Unit
I.P. wells
22-24 bar
Fuel
L.P. wells
IN & OUT
Exhaust
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel
Fuel
Water
Heater
Incinerator
Exhaust
Water
Disposal
8-10 bar
GAS COMPRESSION
PROCESS
DISPOSAL
Quantity
kSm3 / day
Table 4 Current operating conditions of a single IP-HP turbine, as a function of the flow rate of the intermediate pressure
line, estimated from the performance maps
Intermediate pressure inlet
LP-IP turbine
IP-HP turbine
Other usersa
a
6.600
40.362
3.648
bines are simple cycle, whereas the IP-HP are recuperative having
the recuperator placed within the exhaust stack. All the six gas
turbines have dedicated stacks. The dehydration station accommodates four absorption and two regeneration columns. Because of
the current low flow rates, just one LP-IP and one or two IP-HP
compressors are operated at one time, as well as a single absorption and a single regeneration column. Finally, a water heater and
an incinerator, both powered by fuel gas, are installed. Table 3
reports the yearly average uses of fuel gas.
Parameter
Unit
Minimum
flow
Typical
flow
Maximum
flow
Compression power
Current efficiency
Inlet fuel w/r/t LHV
Heat recovery to 160 C
kW
%
kW
kW
3105
32.9
9436
3704
4,455
35.2
12,638
4,788
5,137
35.6
14,425
5,434
need to be retrofitted. In particular, one turbine is not to be modified because it can be operated when the bottoming cycle, either
steam or organic, is off-line. Moreover, the position of the heat
exchangers is either as many exchangers as the number of retrofitted turbines positioned on the top of their stacks an option
readily available from the manufacturer or a single on-ground
exchanger where the exhausts are ducted to. The heat recovery
may be executed directly with the working fluid of the bottoming
cycle or indirectly with a diathermic oil circuit that feeds the
bottoming cycle. In the latter case, the recovery from the incinerator could be connected to that circuit.
The heat recovery to meet the loads of the dehydration station
cannot be considered because, on one hand, the reboilers are of
the direct-flame type and, on the other, there is not a steam circuit
in the plant.
All the revamped layouts investigated include the recovery on
the incinerator indicated with INC. Furthermore, i one employs
the substitution of the LP-IP turbine with the electric motor layout named INC+ EM and visualized in Fig. 2; ii the second, in
addition to the modifications of the previous one, includes the
organic cycle INC+ EM+ ORC, Fig. 3; and iii the last, opposed
to the latter, comprise the steam cycle INC+ EM+ SC, Fig. 4.
Process Simulation
#gas Grid
H.P. wells
50-60 bar
Dehydration
Unit
60-70 bar
Exhaust
#el
Exhaust
Aero-condenser
Heat
Recovery
Steam
Generator
Fuel
Exhaust
Glycol
Regeneration
Unit
Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel
Fuel
Incinerator
I.P. wells
22-24 bar
VFD
~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT
M
Water
Disposal
8-10 bar
PROCESS
GAS COMPRESSION
DISPOSAL
Fig. 2 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator and ii the electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine
layout named INC+ EM
operate in a condition not even included in their map, their efficiency is simply calculated through a linear interpolation, as a
function of power, between the current measured value and the
design one. IP-HP turbines are treated in a more articulated manner, hereafter illustrated. Two data sets are obtained from the maps
reporting, respectively, the power and the efficiency both as a
function of the rotation speed for a number of air flow rates. More
precisely, efficiencies and flows are defined as a ratio of their
nominal values, as provided by the manufacturer, and are so referred to as air design percentage and efficiency factor see
#gas Grid
H.P. wells
Figs. 5 and 6. The two data sets from the maps are then interpolated with two sets of cubic polynomials. For a given rotation
speed and mechanical power for the compressor, which depends
on the compressed flow rate and the pressure ratio, the air flow
rate of the gas turbine is determined by linear interpolation between two adjacent polynomials from the first set of polynomials
Fig. 5; calculated the air flow and given the rotation speed, the
gas turbine efficiency is determined by linear interpolation between the two adjacent polynomials from the second set of polynomials Fig. 6.
50-60 bar
Dehydration
Unit
60-70 bar
Exhaust
#el
Exhaust
Aero-condenser
Organic Steam
Generator
Fuel
Exhaust
Diathermic oil
Heat Recovery
Glycol
Regeneration
Unit
Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel
Fuel
Incinerator
I.P. wells
22-24 bar
VFD
~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT
M
Water
Disposal
8-10 bar
GAS COMPRESSION
PROCESS
DISPOSAL
Fig. 3 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator, ii electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine, and
iii the bottoming Organic Rankine Cycle INC+ EM+ ORC
#gas Grid
H.P. wells
50-60 bar
Exhaust
Dehydration
Unit
60-70 bar
#el
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel
Exhaust
Glycol
Regeneration
Unit
Heat
Recovery
Water
Heater
Fuel Exhaust
Fuel
I.P. wells
Incinerator
22-24 bar
VFD
~
~
L.P. wells
IN & OUT
M
Water
Disposal
8-10 bar
PROCESS
GAS COMPRESSION
DISPOSAL
Fig. 4 Schematic layout of the modified plant employing i the heat recovery
from the incinerator, ii the electric motor substitution for the LP-IP turbine,
and iii the bottoming simple steam Rankine cycle INC+ EM+ SC
1.10
1.05
5000
4000
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
3000
2000
4000
Efficiency factor
6000
6000
8000
10000
Rotation speed [rpm]
12000
0.80
4000
6000
8000
10000
Rotation speed [rpm]
12000
Fig. 6 IP-HP gas turbine digitalized map reporting the efficiency factor nondimensional defined with respect to the
nominal efficiency as a function of the rotation speed rpm for
a number of air flow rates defined as a ratio with respect to the
design efficiency
Table 5 Comparison of field data and model results for the LP-IP compressor-turbine package
and the IP-HP package for the working condition of a specific day taken as an example
LP-IP machine
Parameter
Discharge temperature
Rotation speed
Fuel consumption
Unit
Field
Model
Field
Model
C
rpm
kSm3 / day
117.1
18,943
6.470
122.4
19,750
6.760
117.0
10,684
40.400
105.2
10,790
37.000
throughout the year, as indicated previously. Such typical condition is only slightly different from the yearly average and the day
adopted in the validation.
5.1 Energy Analysis. The main results of the mass and energy balances are reported in Table 6. In the current layout,
1927 Sm3 / h of fuel gas are used within the gas treatment facility,
most of which 79% are burned in the IP-HP turbine. In all the
proposed modified layouts, LP-IP turbine is replaced with an electric motor and hence the consumption of 275 Sm3 / h can be
avoided. On the other side, an electric consumption of 394 kW is
introduced.
The other change for all the modified layouts is the introduction
of a heat recovery on the incinerator fuel gas, to produce hot
water. With this modification, 45 Sm3 / h currently used can be
also saved. A secondary effect deriving from these two modifications is a modest increase in the fuel gas for the IP-HP compression due to the increased rate to be compressed.
The study on the bottoming cycles shows that 865 kW and 657
kW can be produced by means of the ORC and of the SC, respectively. Electricity generated is more than needed for EM and net
exports of 471 kW and 263 kW can be obtained.
In order to evaluate the energy performance of upstream facilities, the energy index EI is usually adopted in the oil and gas
industry. For the gas treatment facility here analyzed, this index is
the ratio between the heat flow associated with the mass flow G
and the LHV of a stream exiting the plant as the natural gas
delivered to the national grid and the heat flow entering the plant
as the sum of the natural gas of all pipelines as follows:
EI =
Gout LHVout
in,k
LHVin,k
LP-IP turbine
IP-HP turbine
Other users
Total
Current
layout INC+ EM INC+ EM+ ORC INC+ EM+ SC
275
1521
131
1927
0
1526
86
1612
IP-HP machine
BAT =
e,ref
in,kLHVin,k
+ Etr,BAT
Pel
e,ref
2
Table 7 Exergy losses from the gas treatment facility processes, in the current and in the
INC+ EM+ ORC layout
Current layout
Difference
kW
kW
kW
2,862
10,240
375
727
797
15,001
19.1
68.3
2.5
4.8
5.3
100
1,003
9,375
375
478
0
11,231
8.9
83.5
3.3
4.3
0.0
100
1859
865
0
249
797
3770
65.0
8.4
0.0
34.3
100
25.1
Table 7.
In the current layout, most of the exergy losses are associated
with the compression stations. These are mainly due to the losses
in the combustion turbines, where fuel gas combustion and fuel
gas heat discharge to the environment are responsible of high
losses. Of the IP-HP compression process losses, 84% are due to
the combustion turbine, 10% to gas compression and 6% to natural gas after-cooling. As to the LP-IP compression station, 93% of
the losses are associated with the turbine as a consequence of its
low efficiency.
Other important losses are due to the incinerator and to water
heating, where fuel calorific value is entirely released to the environment or used to generate low temperature water. In particular,
as far as the incinerator is concerned, 52% of the exergy losses are
associated with the high temperature at the stack and the remaining part is due to the combustion.
The positive effects of the modified layouts are clear from Table
7. The replacement of the LP-IP turbine with the electric motor
allows for a reduction of 65% of the exergy losses, calculated by
taking into account the losses related to the electricity generation
in a state-of-the-art natural gas-fired combined cycle assumed
exergy efficiency of the combined cycle is 50%. In this modification, the share of the losses associated with the gas compressor
driving, that is due to power generation and electrical-tomechanical conversion, is equal to 78%, which is to be compared
with the 93% of the current layout.
The second highest absolute enhancement is related to the
IP-HP compression unit. The installation of an ORC allows reducing exergy losses by 8.4%. Large benefits can also be obtained by
introducing the heat recovery water heater on the incinerator, permitting both to limit losses from the incinerator itself and to completely avoid the losses from the existing water heater, which can
be shut down.
On the whole, by adopting the selected modified layout INC
+ EM+ ORC, exergy losses of the entire gas facility can be reduced by 25.1%, a significant result that fully justifies the proposed modifications also from the second law standpoint.
5.3 Economic and Environmental Analyses. The project
value is estimated via a discounted cash flow. The capital cost of
investment of any revamped layout is equal to the sum of engineering, installation, permitting, project management, and equipment. Live costs are the sum of fuel, maintenance, and personnel.
Costs of all the required components, as well as ordinary and
extraordinary maintenance, are derived from the contact with the
manufacturers. For confidentiality reasons, all these costs cannot
be disclosed. Availabilities of the electric motor and of the ORC
are taken to be 98% and 95%, respectively. The incinerator is
assumed to be always on line. None of the modifications requires
additional personnel. The variations for the revamped layouts
compared with the current are i the EM electric consumption,
ii the onsite electricity production, iii the fuel gas saving, and
iv the GHG emissions. The time span of the investment is only
10 years given that the field is mature. Three scenarios are assessed: i a base case, ii an increased purchasing price of elecJournal of Energy Resources Technology
Unit
Scenario base
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
10
10
10
/MWh
/MWh
/ tCO2
60
100
13
60
150
13
60
100
20
9
Scenario base
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
8
7
Payback time [years]
LP-IP compression
IP-HP compression
Dehydration
Incinerator
Water heater
Entire plant
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
INC+EM
INC+EM+ORC
INC+EM+SC
Fig. 7 Payback time of the three revamped layouts for the assessed scenarios base case, increased purchasing cost of
electricity, and increased CO2 allowance
2.5
Scenario base
Scenario 2
35
Scenario 3
30
CO2 emission [kt/year]
Profitability Index
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
INC+EM
INC+EM+ORC
INC+EM+SC
Fig. 8 Profitability index of the revamped layouts for the assessed scenarios base case, increased purchasing cost of
electricity, and increased CO2 allowance
ACTUAL
Looking for the best economic result, the heat recovery from
the incinerator and the substitution for the electric motors have a
very short payback time. On the other hand, the addition of the
ORC technology yields a much better performance for GHG reduction. The developed methodology i.e., BAT efficiency definition, exergy analysis, and process simulation with HYSYS will
allow extending the analysis to more gas and oil treatment plants
to catch other energy saving opportunities.
Nomenclature
BAT efficiency of the plant with respect to BAT
e,ref fuel-to-electricity conversion reference
Etr,BAT
G
h
INC
LHV
Conclusions
0.5
0.4
Profitability index
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
8%
10%
12%
14%
WACC
16%
18%
20%
INC+EM+ORC INC+EM+SC
Pcomp,BAT
INC+EM
efficiency
equivalent fuel rate for gas treatment with BAT
mass flow
specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
incinerator
low heating value, kJ/kg
electric power for gas compression with BAT,
kW
References
1 Svalheim, S., and King, D. C., 2003, Life of Field Energy Performance,
Proceedings of the Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, UK, Paper No.
SPE 83993-MS.
2 Chauvin, D., Depraz, S., and Buckley, H., 2008, Saving Energy in Oil and
Gas Industry, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Nice,
France, Paper No. SPE 111937-MS.
3 OGP, 2006, Environmental Performance in the E&P Industry: 2005 Data,
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 383.
4 Edwards, J., 2004, Improving Energy Efficiency in E&P Operations, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, AB, Canada, Paper
No. SPE 86604-MS.
5 Nordrum, S., Loreti, C., McMahon, M., and Ritter, K., 2004, Development of
a Consistent Approach to Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Petroleum Industry, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary,
AB, Canada, Paper No. SPE 86609-MS.
6 Cain, J., Lee, A., and Mingst, A., 2006, Developing and Using Technologies
to Manage and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Proceedings of the SPE
International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Paper No. SPE 98399-MS.
7 Verkaamp, W., and Heidug, W. K., 2006, A Strategy for the Reduction of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference
on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Paper No. SPE 98753-MS.
8 Kloster, P., 1999, Energy Optimization on Offshore Installations with Emphasis on Offshore Combined Cycle Plants, Proceedings of the Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, UK, Paper No. SPE 56964-MS.
9 Kloster, P., 2000, Reduction of Emissions to Air Through Energy Optimisation on Offshore Installations, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Stavanger, Norway, Paper No. SPE 61651-MS.
10 Schuster, A., Karellas, S., Kakaras, E., and Spliethoff, H., 2009, Energetic