Shell upstream energy benchmarking model - Nnamdi Wali ... - IPIECA
Shell upstream energy benchmarking model - Nnamdi Wali ... - IPIECA
Shell upstream energy benchmarking model - Nnamdi Wali ... - IPIECA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
<strong>Shell</strong> Upstream CO 2 Benchmarking<br />
By <strong>Nnamdi</strong> <strong>Wali</strong> (Netherlands)<br />
1/22/2010 File Title Copyright: <strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production Ltd.<br />
<strong>IPIECA</strong> Workshop, Houston<br />
26 th January 2010
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Topics<br />
• Why Benchmark GHG Emissions?<br />
• The GHG Emissions Benchmarking Challenge<br />
• <strong>Shell</strong>’s Approach to GHG Emissions Benchmarking<br />
• Sample Benchmarking Outputs<br />
• Strengths / Challenges / Opportunity<br />
• Industry Pilot (Ziff Energy Group)
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Why Benchmark GHG Emissions?<br />
• Assess performance against peer facilities/operations<br />
• Identify problems for continuous improvement to reduce emissions<br />
• Generate reliable information to help set achievable targets at facility level<br />
• Incorporate into future capital development and M&A decisions<br />
• Collaborate with government and regulators in setting policies and legislations<br />
• Address stakeholder concerns, e.g. investors, NGO’s
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
The GHG Emissions Benchmarking Challenge<br />
Achievement<br />
• 2007- 2008: <strong>Shell</strong> CEO extends Operational Excellence drive to include<br />
performance in GHG emissions necessitating development and execution of<br />
<strong>benchmarking</strong><br />
• 120 <strong>Shell</strong> installations assessed in many countries and operating environments<br />
• 2009: Additional external assessments in the North Sea - positive results<br />
Challenge<br />
• How do you make fair comparisons for Upstream installations given<br />
the following?
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Production Installations<br />
Onshore<br />
Offshore
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Production Facilities<br />
• Treatment Point for produced fluids<br />
• Separation of gas, oil and water/solids<br />
• Degassing, Dehydration, Deoiling<br />
• Product Evacuation<br />
• Waste Disposal<br />
• Facilities / Utilities Control<br />
• Logistic / Manning Base<br />
Water Oil Gas<br />
Deoiling<br />
Degassing<br />
Dehydration<br />
Conditioning<br />
Treatment<br />
Compression<br />
Disposal<br />
Injection<br />
Evacuation<br />
Evacuation<br />
Utilities<br />
Disposal<br />
Injection
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
<strong>Shell</strong> Benchmarking Concept<br />
• Energy efficiency based benchmark that normalises the differences in installations (as<br />
far as practical) to achieve “apples to apples” comparison<br />
• Considers the <strong>energy</strong> required to produce and export hydrocarbon from the installation<br />
• Multi-step process<br />
– Calculates theoretical emissions from relevant fluid flow and thermodynamic<br />
relationships<br />
– The theoretical emissions are then modified to get predicted figure by empirical<br />
coefficients established through field testing during development of the concept.<br />
• Metric for comparison is the CO2 Efficiency Index (CEI)<br />
– CEI = Actual emissions / Predicted emissions X 100 (the lower the number, the<br />
better)<br />
• To compensate for conditions that cannot be easily <strong>model</strong>led, installations CEIs are<br />
compared in Peer Groups.
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Underlying Logic<br />
What are the Systems?<br />
What needs Normalising? What can you measure?<br />
Hydrocarbon Export Systems<br />
(Compression & Pumping)<br />
Field Maturity<br />
Fluid type<br />
Distance to custody transfer<br />
Production<br />
Pressure<br />
Water cut<br />
Artificial Lift Systems<br />
(Compression, ESPs, Beam Pumps)<br />
Field Maturity<br />
Reservoir characteristics<br />
Power consumption<br />
Lift gas flow volume<br />
Lift gas pressure<br />
Gas & Water Re-injection<br />
(Compression & pumping)<br />
Secondary Recovery<br />
Produced gas disposal<br />
Produced water disposal<br />
Gas volume injected<br />
Water volume injected<br />
Pressure<br />
Gas Conditioning Systems<br />
Gas Sweetening<br />
CO2 / H2S removed<br />
Steam Generation<br />
Thermal EOR<br />
Oil Steam Ratio (OSR)<br />
Reservoir Oil/Bulk Ratio<br />
Baseload<br />
Utilities & Miscellaneous load<br />
Fixed value
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Benchmarking Output – CO2 Efficiency Index
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Benchmarking Output – Priority Setting
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Benchmarking Output – Gap Analysis<br />
100%<br />
3.8%<br />
3.8%<br />
15.1%<br />
0.2%<br />
77.1%<br />
Energy consumption can be reduced by 18.3%<br />
Operational flaring can be reduced by 12.5% 47.5%<br />
Operational venting can be reduced by 4.3%<br />
Actual<br />
Emissions<br />
Gap due to<br />
Continuous<br />
Flaring<br />
Gap due to<br />
Operational<br />
Flaring<br />
Gap due to<br />
Energy<br />
Efficiency<br />
Gap due to<br />
Operational<br />
Venting<br />
TQ<br />
Performance
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Strengths & Challenges<br />
Strengths<br />
• Identifies real & actionable gaps<br />
• Provides fairest comparison<br />
(e.g. <strong>Shell</strong>, North Sea pilot)<br />
• Delivers a tighter results range (3:1 in North<br />
Sea study) than Product-based<br />
<strong>benchmarking</strong> (Ton CO 2 /BOE)<br />
<strong>benchmarking</strong> (e.g. 50+:1 range for CDP)<br />
• Helps <strong>Shell</strong> E&P identify priority assets and<br />
quick wins<br />
Challenges<br />
• Data integrity (diverse operators & their<br />
status of data capture)<br />
• Comprehensive data gathering<br />
requirements<br />
• Bias towards gas producing facilities<br />
with compression<br />
• Extending methodology to unconventionals<br />
Opportunity<br />
• Industry Benchmarking “Pilot Study”
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pilot<br />
Benchmarking Study<br />
Benefits<br />
• spread knowledge of methodology<br />
• influence evolution to ‘next generation’ GHG BM (e.g.<br />
new metrics)<br />
Ziff Energy’s Role<br />
• Leading independent Upstream benchmarker, with<br />
a Centre for Benchmarking Excellence (CBE)<br />
• Over 2 decades of <strong>upstream</strong> analysis in 30 countries;<br />
170+ projects; database on over 3,750 fields<br />
• Upstream analogue to Solomon (downstream)<br />
• Partnered with <strong>Shell</strong> on a ‘sole source’ basis, exclusive<br />
‘commercial <strong>benchmarking</strong>’ license<br />
• Meetings with U.S., International & Canadian producers<br />
began mid-2009<br />
• Timing<br />
– Pilot study -- 1 st half 2010<br />
– Commercial study – full study in 2011
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Pilot Study<br />
• Quick turnaround in 2010<br />
• Sample assets should be large, with data easily available<br />
• Commercial Study (2011) will incorporate new ideas from the Pilot<br />
Study participants & extend coverage to additional assets<br />
Example: More Detailed Onshore Peer Groups<br />
Gas • Deep gas / gas plant<br />
• Sour gas / gas plant<br />
• Low pressure gas / compressor (large)<br />
Oil • Primary<br />
• Secondary / water flood
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Gas Plants: Normalized Unit Energy Use<br />
vs. Overall Complexity Factor [Ziff Example]<br />
Energy Use Normalized Unit<br />
Mcf Fuel / Sales Volume<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
R 2 = 0.67<br />
10<br />
0<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70<br />
Overall Complexity Factor<br />
All Plants<br />
Sample Co.<br />
Source: Ziff Energy’s 2008 Improving Field Performance Study
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Conclusion<br />
• CO2 Efficiency based <strong>benchmarking</strong> Upstream facilities is attainable<br />
• Results from CO2 Efficiency based <strong>benchmarking</strong> are superior to Productbased<br />
(Tonnes CO2/Ton HC) <strong>benchmarking</strong><br />
• Refining and Chemical sectors have agreed on <strong>benchmarking</strong> methods which in<br />
principle are variants of the <strong>Shell</strong> approach for Upstream<br />
• Upstream sector has to act, and act quickly, to agree on <strong>benchmarking</strong> metric<br />
approach, to establish Best-in-Class performance, and identify ‘gaps’
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Well Sites<br />
• To accommodate drilling<br />
operations<br />
• To provide for maintenance /<br />
workovers<br />
• To provide containment in case<br />
of accidents<br />
• Possible facilities :<br />
• Wellhead(s) / Flowline(s)<br />
• Production Manifold<br />
• Production Testing<br />
• Gas Lift / Gas Injection<br />
/ Water Injection Wells<br />
Cellar for<br />
small spills<br />
Production<br />
Wellhead<br />
..... Single Wellhead<br />
..... Cluster of Wellheads<br />
To G. Stn
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Transportation to Markets<br />
• Normally involves very long distance to export terminal<br />
• Complex rights of way / transportation<br />
• Complex terrain<br />
• Onshore terminal – centralised facilities - further conditioning to<br />
sales spec, desulphurisation, compression etc
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
System Boundary for <strong>benchmarking</strong><br />
Gas Export<br />
FGC 1<br />
FGC 2<br />
Dehydration<br />
GLC<br />
VRU 2<br />
HP Separator<br />
Deimos Well<br />
Mars Well<br />
FWKO<br />
Oil Treater<br />
VRU 1<br />
Dry Oil Tank<br />
Oil Export<br />
Export Pump<br />
Produced Water
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Sample Outputs<br />
GHG: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)<br />
Primary<br />
Metric<br />
CO2 Emissions Index (CEI)<br />
(Normalised metric)<br />
Total GHG Emissions<br />
Site Specific Standard Emission<br />
Total GHG Emissions<br />
GHG Emissions Intensity<br />
(Ton CO2eq/Ton HC)<br />
Production<br />
Secondary Metrics<br />
Energy Intensity<br />
Upstream<br />
Energy Efficiency Index (UEEI)<br />
(Normalised metric)<br />
Total Energy Consumption<br />
Production<br />
Total Energy Consumption<br />
Standard Energy<br />
(GJ/Ton HC)<br />
Volume Flared and Vented<br />
Flaring & Venting Index<br />
Total Volume of Gas Processed
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
The Benchmarking Tool – Input Questionnaire<br />
• Simple Excel spreadsheet<br />
• 72 input fields with some redundancies<br />
for data validation<br />
• typical installation requires 40 – 50<br />
entries.<br />
• effort to populate questionnaire varies<br />
depending on facility configuration<br />
and nature of process data acquisition<br />
• Questionnaire automatically uploaded<br />
upon validation by data provider into<br />
Benchmarking Analysis Tool via a webbased<br />
Batch Loader.
<strong>Shell</strong> Exploration & Production<br />
Pilot Study Asset Selection<br />
• Large Assets/Facilities<br />
– 100Kt / 50Kt / 25Kt pa?<br />
• Sample smaller assets?<br />
• Variety of assets (populate Peer Groups)<br />
• Need: current facility points schematics with data measurement readily<br />
available (reduce data work)<br />
• Ziff Energy will map various data sources<br />
• Period - ’09 actual
Change language