Center for ElectromechanicsThe University of Texas at Austin
Oil Exploration & Extraction
John Herbst
CEM Advisory PanelApril 27-28, 2010
Presentation Overview Technology Overview & Relevance CEM Research Activities
• Electromagnetic Vibrator• Electric Valve Actuator• Subsea Production Systems• Offshore Power Generation/Distribution• Hyperbaric Test Facility
Upcoming Milestones
Technology Relevance Most of the “easy” oil and gas
reserves have been identified Locating and exploiting future
reservoirs will require drilling and production in more challenging environments• “Tight” formations• Deeper water/higher pressures• Longer offsets
CEM Research• Electric valve actuation• EM Vibro-seismic sources• Subsea/Offshore production• Power transmission/conversion
Source: Aker Solutions
Source: http://www.hydro.com/library/images/press_room/news/2003_11/Ormen_1800.jpg
Electromagnetic Vibrator New technology advancing
the exploration for oil & gas Replaces existing vibro-
seismic technology based on hydraulic actuators• Uses EM forces to generate
source waves
Higher force, lower frequency and higher fidelity are potential improvements to existing technology
Ground Force Simulations Simulation model does not include
the natural resonance of the base plate (~175 Hz). Model DOES include earth resonance (~39 Hz)
Expected spectral performance of proof-of-concept system is good• Figure shows 60 Kip force for full sweep
Bottom figure shows waveform details at ~120 Hz• PWM delivers good harmonic resolution
Proof-of-concept system will produce 60 Kips on soils comparable to sand (or harder)
5
19.84 19.85 19.86 19.87 19.88 19.89 19.9-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Time , seconds
K#
Ground Force in K#
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Time , seconds
K#
Ground Force - POC - 125 Hertz Sweep
Detailed high resolution models in Matlab were used to guide the development
EM Vibrator Conclusions
Design, construction, and assembly of the electromagnetic vibrator is complete
Integration on an existing truck is complete
Initial testing has just begun and we plan to test the full functionality of this new oil and gas exploration technology
Electric Valve Actuation Wellhead valves have
typically been hydraulically actuated with failsafe spring closure• Operation at higher pressures
requires larger springs Discharge of hydraulic fluid
is prohibited in many areas• Zero tolerance in North Sea
CEM developed designs for all-electric valve actuators http://www.spe.org/jpt/2006/10/all-electric-subsea-production-system/
Subsea Production Systems Subsea production processes
• Multi-phase pumping• Re-injection pumping• Separation• Gas compression
Multi-megawatt power levels Technologies
• Barrier fluid filled motors Induction motors Permanent magnet motors
• Power distribution/control http://www.intsok.no/docroot/downloads/Framo--PDF-7--Subsea-Pump-Proje.pdf
1.8 MW Subsea Pumps
Integrated Compression Systems
Direct drive compressor with integral high speed electric motor
Single pressure housing• Eliminates high ΔP seal
Leveraging CEM experience with high speed, high power density electric machines
http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/integrated_compressor_line.pdf
Example of GE Integrated Compressor
Subsea Separation/Boosting System
Flooded Motor Technology Evaluation
CEM evaluation favors synchronous PM motor over induction motors for subsea applications
Pros• Power factor• Efficiency• Physical airgap
Cons• Power density
Motor Comparisons
PM motor IM motor
Typical No-load air gap flux density, T 0.75 0.85
Maximum practical No-load flux density, T 0.85 1.0
Typical relative power density (IM=1.0) 0.88 1.0
Maximum excitation relative power density (IM=1.0) 0.85 1.0
PM motor IM motor
Typical rated load power factor 0.88 0.83
Stator I2R loss penalty for the same stator copper (PM=1.0) 1.0 1.12
Copper content penalty for stator I2R loss (PM=1.0) 1.0 1.12
Torque per Ampere penalty (PM=1.0) 1.0 0.94
Motor Comparisons
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Frictional Losses @ 3,300 rpm [kW]
Frictional Losses @ 6,000 rpm [kW]
Physical Airgap [mm]
Fri
cti
onal Losses [
kW
]
Offshore Power Generation & Distribution Systems
Typical Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) ship has ~100 MW power generation• Pumps and compressors are
major loads Leveraging ESRDC
experience in modeling of ship power systems to explore novel offshore power system topologies
Statoil Troll A Platform
Statoil’s Troll A Platform off coast of Norway ABB HVDC Light power distribution from
shore• ~85 MW of electrical power • ~70 km offset
Offshore Power Transmission & Distribution Systems
Eliminate FPSO or fixed platform by providing tie-back to shore• Eliminates cost/risk of
topside installation• Efficient power generation
on shore Requires subsea production system
• Motors, pumps, separators, compressors, valves, etc.
• Communications & control• Power distribution & conversion
CEM Hyperbaric Test Facility ASME Code rated:
• 10,000 psi, 400°F Interior dimensions:
• 19” Ø x 58” L 14 penetrations
• Instrumentation• Power supply• Hydraulics
Upcoming Milestones Field testing of EM vibrator
• May – June 2010 Production prototype of EM vibrator
• Projected program start August 2010 Certification and commissioning of
hyperbaric chamber• Scheduled for May 2010
Summary
CEM is conducting state-of-the-art research to support exploration and production of challenging oil and gas reserves• Developing major new research programs in this area
Research leverages CEM’s core technologies• Power system modeling and simulation• High power density electric machines• Electric actuators• Power generation, distribution, and conversion
CEM is building a 10,000 psi hyperbaric test facility to support future research in this area