greenhouse gas and energy efficiency report_brown.docx

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report

Project Gbaran Phase 3A – Abasere ProjectOriginating

Company SCiN Engineering Design Office

Document Title Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency ReportDocument

Number GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-00001

Document Revision R02

Document Status Issued for ReviewOriginator /

Author Harold B.

Security Classification Restricted

ECCN EAR 99

Issue Date 25-April-16Revision History is

shown next page

Rev #

Date of Issue

Status Description

Originator Checker Approver

R03 7-Mar-16 Issued for Review Harold B. Akinloye B. Anumba C

R02 7-Mar-16 Issued for Review Akinbote A.J

Akinloye B. Anumba C

R01 15-Dec-15 Issued for Review Akinbote

A.J.Akinloye B. Anumba C

SSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34

This document is controlled electronically and is uncontrolled when printed


of 34


ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT/APPROVAL RECORD

PartyRef Indicator Name Sign Date

Guidelines:1. Please consider using hyperlinks to Livelink rather than embedding

large documents.2. Fonts must not be altered from the standard styles.3. Graphs to be without borders.4. Use non-breaking spaces between numbers and units

Ctrl+Shift+Space5. Special Characters such as degree (°C) refer to: http://www.alt-

codes.net/ 6. Maps to follow Shell mapping standards.7. Figures & tables to be incorporated in the text, with attachments if

a larger figure will benefit (reference attachment in caption). Captions below figure using the Insert Caption command.

8. Units are Oil field Metric. If Oil field standard units are used (e.g. ft and psi, then the metric translation must be put straight afterwards e.g. 1000ft [305m])

9. Use m3 rather than bbl/ft3

Revision Philosophy:a. All FEED documents for review shall be issued at R01, with

subsequent R02, R03, etc as required.b. All documents approved for issue, or approved for design shall be

issued at A01with subsequent A02, A03, etc as required. (Management of Change is required for A02, A03, etc).

c. All Detailed Design documents for review shall be issued at D01, with subsequent D02, D03, etc as required.

d. All documents approved for construction shall be issued at C01with subsequent C02, C03, etc as required. (Management of Change is required for C02, C03, etc).

e. All approved “As Built” documents shall be issued at Z01, with subsequent Z02, Z03, etc as required. (Use versions Z01.1, Z01.2, Z01.3, etc to review “As Built” document to Z02).

Revision HistorySSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


http://www.alt-codes.net/

http://www.alt-codes.net/

Rev No Date of issue Reason for Issue / ChangeR01 13-Nov-15 Issued for Review Comments


of 34


Table of Contents1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1. Background 71.2. Objectives 71.3. Abasere Project Overview 71.4. Work Scope based on Basis for Design 81.5. Report Scope 91.6. Connections to Adjacent facility 9

2. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY USE 102.1. Production Forecast 102.2. Mass, Energy and GHG Balances 102.3. Greenhouse gas emission forecast and CPF energy use 11

3. CONCLUSION 134. ABBREVIATIONS 145. ATTACHMENTS 156. REFERENCES 16


of 34


TablesTable 1: Overall emissions forecast and energy consumption 6Table 2: Abasere GHG forecast 11Table 3: Abasere energy consumption 12


of 34


FiguresFigure 1: Abasere Project Scope – Overview 8Figure 2: Overview of Design Scope 9Figure 2.1: Abasere production forecast 10


of 34


1. Introduction2. abbreviations

AG/AGG Associated Gas / Associated Gas Gathering

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

ARP Asset Reference Plan

BCOT Bonny Crude Oil Terminal

BFD Basis For Design

BFG Bonny Fuel Gas

BNAG Bonny Non-Associated Gas

BPD Barrels Per Day

BYSEB Bayelsa State Electricity Board

CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

CDM Carbon Development Mechanism

CEI Carbon Emission Index

CGR Condensate Gas Ratio

CLP Crude Loading Platform

COT Crude Oil Tanks

CPF Central Processing Facilities

DCAF Discipline Controlled Assurance Framework

DRB Decision Review Board

EE Energy Efficiency

EMP Energy Management Plan

FCV Flow Control Valve

FDP Field Development Plan

FEED Front End Engineering Design

FLB Field Logistic Base

FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading

GES Global Environmental Standards

GFC Generic Fitting Count

GHG/EEMP Green House Gas & Energy Efficiency Management Plan

GJ Giga-Joule

GLR Gas Liquid Ratio

GOR Gas Oil Ratio

GP Gas Plant

GRF Gas Receiving Facility

GT/GTG Gas Turbine/ Gas Turbine GeneratorSSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


HC Hydrocarbon

HIPPS High Integrity Pressure Protection System

HP High Pressure

HSE Health Safety & Environment

IAP Integrated Activity Plan

JV Joint Venture

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LGSP LNG Gas Supply Plant

LHV Lower Heating Value

LOF Life of Field

LP Low Pressure

LTO License to Operate

LVDR Leaking Valve Detection and Repair

MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day

MOP Maximum Operating Pressure

NFA No Further Activity

NLNG Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas

NNF Normally Non-Flow

NPA New Process Area

NPV Net Present Value

OGGS Offshore Gas Gathering System

ORP Opportunity Realisation Process

OU Operating Unit

PFI Proposals for Implementation

POPM Process Operating Procedures Manual

PP Power Plant

PSV Project Screening Value

PV Present Value

PVRV Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valve

RACI Responsible Accountable Consults InformRFM Remote Field ManifoldSCEI Shell CO2 Emission IndexSCiN Shell Companies in Nigeria

SPDC Shell Petroleum Development Company

STBPD Stock Tank Barrels Per Day

SYMP Soft Yoke Mooring Platform

TQ Top Quartile

UEEI Upstream Energy Efficiency Index

VRU Vapour Recovery Unit

WHRU Waste Heat Recovery UnitSSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


WIP Water Injection Plant

XHP Extra High Pressure


of 34


3. SUMMARY

GHG Emissions for the Abaere Field Development Project over the 10 year forecast period are

estimated at 35,510 tonnes of CO2eq, when average production is about 24,000 stbpd (net

condenstate) and 400 MMSCFD. Imported power generation accounts for 82.1 % of the total

emissions, and is the major source of emission in the project. Fugitive emissions from valves and

flanges account for 14.8 % of the total GHG emissions. Venting at Abasere due to routine

maintenance depressuring accounts less than 3.1 % of the total GHG emissions.

Over the forecast period, the total emissions and energy intensities are 0.8 kg CO2 equiv. and 0.013

GJ per Tonne of hydrocarbon produced respectively. Also the SCEI and UEEI are 43 and 0.52

respectively. These are generally low compared to peer facilities in the group. Regarding GHG

emissions and energy consumption therefore, this project is considered ALARP.

In addition there are other design considerations or elements, which either have direct impact on

emissions or are implemented in order to enable accurate measurement and analysis of energy use

and GHG emissions. These include;

1. Use of HIPPS instead of relief valve as ultimate safeguard for overpressure protection of

downstream facility to avoid relief vent load at Abasere Field.

2. Depressuring philosophy to depressurise the Abasere flowlines at Gbaran CPF where it will

be flared.

3. Installation of PZA-HH on the Slugcatcher at Soku LGSP to reduce demand on installed relief

valve. This reduces relief events and consequently reduces flaring emissions at the Soku

LGSP.

4. Provide Vent Gas Meter at the RFM to measure and Monitor venting incidents, frequency

and flow rates

5. Provide individual fuel gas meters for each gas engine power generator to measure the fuel

gas consumed by individual gas engines.


of 34


1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The purpose of the Group Global Environmental Standards (GES, Ref. 3) is to establish a baseline for

continuous improvement as required by the Group HSE Commitment and Policy.

For Greenhouse gases the GES (section 1) states:

“All major installations shall manage GHG emissions, taking into account the carbon value, to

maximize the business opportunity by:

Implementing 5-year greenhouse gas (GHG) management plans which capture the inherent

value of GHG emission reduction opportunities within the installation according to the relevant

market.

Quantifying GHG emissions at a frequency suitable for the relevant legal framework, but reporting

at least annually.

Forecasting GHG emissions 10 years ahead at least annually.”

For Energy use and Efficiency the GES (section 10) states:

“Energy use and energy efficiency shall be actively monitored at all major installations and 5-year

Energy Management Plans shall be in place that describes the continuous improvement process to

maximise the efficiency of energy use and throughput.

A demonstration of how energy efficiency considerations have been included in the design of the

project shall be made for new and modified major installations.”

This document describes the combined 5-year greenhouse gases (GHG) management plan and 5-

year Energy Management plan for Abasere Field Development assets at Abasere RMF for the year

2017 in response to this standard.

1.2 Objectives

The key GHG and EE management objectives at the Definition phase of a project are:

To define and specify the selected development option, including the measures selected to

minimise the GHG emissions and reduce energy consumptions.

To optimise the GHG and EE management at an equipment and system integration level.

To specify the GHG and EE requirements for long lead equipment.


of 34


1.3 Asset & Activities description

The GHG & Energy efficiency Management Plan for the Abasere Field Development Project covers

the following facilities:

Flowlines, Production Headers, Bulk line Remote Manifold, Pig Launcher, Instrument Air Package,

Corrosion Injection System, Well Equalisation System and Gas Engine Power Generators. These

facilities are owned and operated by SPDC under the Land 2 East Asset (PEL2) Area. Other facilities

which are located at the Soku LGSP include the Pig Receiver and the Slugcatcher.

1.3.1 Project OverviewGbaran Phase 3A Abasere Field development is an integrated oil and gas development which aims to develop 0.835Tcf of gas and ~29MMbbls of condensate & oil reserves at Abasere field in order to meet SPDC’s commitment to sustain NLNG gas supply obligation and support oil growth. The development is tranched such as to progress into FEED/Define with Tranche-1 (gas development), while the oil will be for a subsequent phase of development (Tranche-2) to allow for evolving a secured oil evacuation concept and carry out further appraisal to shore up the oil volume/economics.

The Abasare work scope is totally green field. It comprises of two well locations; Abasere-001 and Abasere-004. Three NAG wells will be clustered at the Abasere - 001 location and two wells at the Abasere-004 location. The five development NAG wells will be hooked-up via 6-inch flowlines to the Abasere NAG remote manifold to be located near the Abasere – 004 well cluster. The wells will be commingled at the manifold and bulk flowed via a new 12-inch x 17.7 km bulkline (Design Capacity 180MMscfd/d) to the existing Zarama Remote NAG manifold. The NAG production from both Abasere and Zarama fields will be co-mingled at the Zarama manifold and transported via the existing 20-inch x 10.2 km Zarama NAG bulkline to the Gbaran CPF. This bulkline (Design capacity 670MMscf/d) is already tied to the Zarama slug-catcher installed at Gbaran CPF.It is envisaged that Zarama NAG may already be on compression before the Abasere field development On-Stream date; therefore, the design cases will incorporate the flexibility to operate the Abasere NAG wells for an arrival pressure of both 105barg and 40barg at the Gbaran CPF.

1.3.2 Process Overview

The surface facilities for the Kolo Creek Deep Field Development include a remote field manifold and

bulkline and end facilities to gather production from 7 Kolo Creek Deep wells into the Soku LGSP.

The facilities, schematically shown in Figure 1.1, include:SSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


Seven (7)Flowlines

Three (3) Production Headers

Three (3) Bulk Flowlines

One (1) Manifold

One (1) Pig Launcher

One (1) Bulk line

One (1) Pig Receiver

One (1) Slugcatcher Vessel

Gross Liquid to the Soku LGSP Condensate Stabilization system

Wet Gas to the Soku LGSP gas treatment system for export to NLNG.

Notes1. There are 3 Production Headers2. Each Production Header has 2-3 flowlines from F1 & F2 wells3. Each Production Header has a secondary flowline to the Manifold

Figure 1.1– Kolo Creek Deep Process Flow Scheme

The base case production forecast is shown in Figure 2.1. The facility has been designed for a gross

liquids export of 46,000 bpd (24,000 stbpd condensate) and gas export of 400 MMscfd (Ref. 24).

The total power requirement for the Kolo Creek RFM (Phase 1 and K2S) is supplied from the two (2)

new replacement gas engine power generators at the manifold. These gas engine generators are

rated at 280 KW each. The primary fuel gas source is the tee-off fuel gas line (via the Kolo Creek

Scrubber) from the Gbaran CPF to BYSEB Fuel gas supply line.


of 34


1.4 Link to other Asset plans

This plan is aligned with the following asset plans and processes with the interdependencies

illustrated in Figure 1.2 below:

Asset Reference Plan (input/output);

Medium and long-term Integrated Activity Plan (Input);

HSE Plan (output);

Business Plan (output),

Operating philosophy (input/output)

GHG/EMPMaster Plan

OperatingPhilosophy

IAP (MT,LT)

ARP

HSE Plan

Business Plan

GHG/EMPMaster Plan

OperatingPhilosophy

IAP (MT,LT)

ARP

HSE Plan

Business Plan

GHG/EMPMaster Plan

OperatingPhilosophy

IAP (MT,LT)

ARP

HSE Plan

Business Plan

Figure 1-2: Relationship between GHG/EMP Plan and existing Business Processes

1.5 Regulatory framework

Nigerian Law does not directly regulate greenhouse gas emissions or energy efficiency. However,

there are laws governing the flaring of gas, which remains the largest source of greenhouse gas

emissions in SPDC’s operations. There have been penalties in place since the early 1990s for the

flaring of gas. Future regulation will be far more stringent; Nigeria’s parliament is debating legislation

that will outlaw flaring with effect from the end of 2010. Shell also has a commitment to eliminate this

practice as soon as possible.

1.6 Applicable Standards, Manuals and Methodology

The following documents are related to this Energy and GHG Management Plan:


of 34


The Global Environmental Standards (GES).

The EP-GES (EP2005-0161-ST).

The HSE Performance, Monitoring and Reporting (PMR) standard.

The Guideline on Energy Efficiency (EP2005-0161-GL-01)

The Investment Decision Manual (IDM)

EP guidance to carbon management functional support

CO2 Projects Screening Values (PSVs)

The GHG Abatement Masterplanning methodology

1.7 Plan Update Process

This GHG/EEMP is a live document and therefore shall be updated yearly. Update shall coincide with

the business planning and capital allocation processes. Preliminary or working draft version shall be

issued prior to commencement of the business planning cycle and a final version, which will be

signed off by responsible Asset Manager, shall be issued upon regional leadership endorsement of

the business plan.

Preparation of this first issue of the document has been led directly by the Regional CO2 /Energy

Management team; in future the Asset will be responsible for updating the plan annually, in line with

the business planning cycle.

1.8 Communication of plan

In order to be effective, this plan will be communicated to stakeholders by adopting different

communication modes for different stakeholders. Simple stakeholder mapping indicates the following

as key stakeholders:

This document shall be communicated to:

SPDC Land 2 East Asset (PEL2) Manager and Leadership Team

SPDC Swamp 1 East Asset (PES1) Manager and Leadership Team

Gbaran CPF Company staff and contractor staff (involved in operations)

Soku LGSP Company staff and contractor staff (involved in operations)

Joint Venture Partners and Regulatory bodies

1.9 Governance, Accountability & Assurance

Since this plan is focusing on existing assets, the focus is on reducing GHG emission and improving

the utilisation of energy. Table 1.1 below specifies the governance of the GHG/EEMP for a producing

asset. Consequently, all the activities listed in the RACI table (Table 1.1) during the project phase

(opportunity maturation and realisation phases) shall be included in the Operations Readiness and


of 34


Assurance (OR&A) plan, with principal accountability being either the Business Opportunity Manager

(BOM) for maturation phase or Project Manager for the realisation phase.

Activity Asset Manager

Regional CO2

Focal Point

Asset Support Engineer

Development

EngineerHSE

Regional Economics

Team

Develop and update Energy & GHG Management Plan

AccountableConsult

(Develops first issue)

Responsible Consult Consult Consult

Economic evaluation of identified opportunities

Accountable ConsultResponsible

(minor projects)

Responsible (major projects)

Inform Consult

Select opportunities for implementation Accountable Consult Responsible Consult Consult Consult

Prepare IPs / seek carbon management functional support

Consult ConsultAccountable

(minor projects)

Accountable (major projects)

Inform Inform

Develop, implement and monitor Implementation Plan

Accountable ResponsibleResponsible

(minor Projects)

Responsible (Major projects)

Consult Inform

Forecast GHG emissions and Energy consumption

Accountable ConsultResponsible

(minor Projects)

Responsible (Major projects)

Consult Inform

Emissions Target setting Accountable Responsible Responsible Inform

Responsible

Consult

Assurance Responsible Accountable Consult InformResponsi

bleInform

Table 1-1: Roles and Responsibilities for GHG and Energy Management Plan


of 34


2.0 baseline assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emission and energy use

This chapter describes and quantifies direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions associated with

expected production activities to be performed in this asset. It takes inventory of the energy usage

within the asset boundary limit, on how the energy demand will be satisfied and the associated

emissions. It also includes a 10 year forecast for GHG emissions. As detailed vendor equipment data

is available, the accuracy of the forecasts should be +/- 10%.

This section seeks to describe the expected operation and its performance with respect to GHG emissions and energy efficiency,

2.1 Production Forecast

The base case production forecast is tabulated in Table 2.1 and shown in Figure 2.1. See Appendix 4.1

Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gas (MMsc

fd)20.51 48.45 59.16 76.07 88.33 97.95 106.32 11.66 140.44 151.64

Condensate

(stbpd)781.35

1945.22

2356.17

2964.48

3355.64

3609.16

3783.68

3942.04

3386.64

3326.31

Table 2.1: Production forecast for Abasere Field Deep wells producing to Soku LGSP


of 34


Figure 2.1 – Abasere Field Production Forecast

This data shall be updated annually to cover for 10 years.The graphical overview of the production system limits, energy and emissions streams, are shown in

Figure 2.2. All power will be imported from Gbaran CPF.

Figure 2.2: Mass and energy balance


of 34


Soku LGSP

Figure 2.2 – Graphical overview production, energy and emissions streams for Kolo Creek Deep

Project

2.2 Heat integration

There no heating or cooling duties on the facilities. Heat integration is therefore not possible.

2.3 Rotating equipment load list

The rotating equipment load list is shown in Table 2.2. See Appendix 4.2. The table shows the

required energy, losses and efficiencies, under normal operating conditions. Note that Mechanical

has not defined all the columns at this phase.

These are fixed drive rotating equipment for utilities; hence the Variable Speed Drives (VSD) losses

are not applicable. The pumps and compressor efficiencies are 75% and 80% respectively. There are

no opportunities to further optimise this system.

Table 2.2 – Rotating equipment load list for Kolo Creek Deep Project

2.4 Electrical load list

The electrical load list for the Abasere Field Project is presented in Appendix 4.3. This forms the

basis for the energy efficiency calculations.

2.5 Greenhouse gas emissions and intensity

The greenhouse gas emissions are summarised in Table 2.3. The direct emissions are essentially

limited to operational venting, as there is no on-site power generation or heating. The indirect

emissions from the power imported from an open cycle power plant dominate the total emissions. The

greenhouse gas emission intensity is estimated at 0.8 kg/Ton of hydrocarbon produced. The intensity

is low compared to other plants, since there is no artificial lift , no oil treatment and no gas treatment

in Kolo Creek Deep Well Development Project. See Appendix 4.4.


of 34


Parameter Units Total

Forecast Period Years 10

Total direct emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 780

Combustion emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 0.00

Flaring emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. N/A

Venting emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 136.11

Fugitive emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 643.89

Total indirect emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 3584.12

Total emissions Tonne CO2 equiv. 4228.01

Total hydrocarbon production Tonne HC 8,857,445.0

Total direct emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0004929

Combustion emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0000

Flaring emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0000000

Venting emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0000151

Fugitive emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0000727

Total indirect emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0004046

Total emissions intensity Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.0005

Total emissions intensity kg CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC 0.49

Table 2.3 – Greenhouse gas emissions summary for Abasere Field Project

Combus-tion

emission

82.1%

Venting3.1%

Fugitive14.8%

Abasere Forecast (2022-2031) GHG Emissions Breakdown


of 34


Figure 2.3 – Emission Point Source distribution for Abasere Field Project

2.6 Energy consumption and intensity

The energy consumption and intensity over the forecast period is shown in Table 2.4. The energy

intensity is 0.013 GJ/Tonne HC produced. This energy intensity is low because there is no direct oil

and gas treatment. However, if the power required at Gbaran CPF to treat the gas to export quality

and to stabilize the condensate to stock tank quality is taken into account, the energy intensity will

increase.

Parameter Units Total

Forecast Period Years 10

Electric power consumption over forecast period million GJ 0.53

Hydrocarbon production over forecast period million Tonne 8.85

Energy intensity GJ/Tonne of HC 0.013

Table 2.4 – Energy consumption and intensity for Abaere Field Project

2.7 Conversion Factors

The conversion factors used for the above assessments are shown in Table 2.5.

Parameter Units Value

Generated power to CO2 emissions kg CO2 equiv. / MWh 663.12

Lower heating value of gas MJ/m3(st) 37.85

Flare gas to CO2 emissions kg CO2 equiv. / m3 (st) 2.47

Vent gas to CO2 emissions kg CO2 equiv. / m3 (st) 11.49

Condensate volume to HC mass Tonne HC / bbl 0.117

Gas volume to HC mass Tonne HC / m3(st) 0.00081

Table 2.5 – Conversion factors use for Abasere Field study


of 34


3.0 DEMONSTRATION OF ALARP IN FEED

3.1 GHG Emissions & Energy Use ALARP Assessment

Regarding the low total emissions and energy intensities obtained from sections 2.5 and 2.6 above,

the Abasere Field Development Project can be considered ALARP with respect to GHG emissions

and energy consumption. This conclusion is largely based on the following assessment.

22.32.42.52.62.7

3.2 Abasere Key Performance Indicators

Based on the Group CO2 Benchmarking Methodology, the Abasere scores amongst the first quartile

for the key performance indicators as calculated in the result table shown below. See Attachment

5.2.

Table 3.1 – SCEI & UEEI KPIs for Kolo Creek Deep Project

The K2S SCEI and UEEI are 43% and 0.52% respectively. This simply implies that the facility emits

only 43% CO2/ton HC produced (i.e. 3,251 ton CO2 equiv./ton HC) of the site specific standard SSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


emission (i.e. 7,592 ton CO2 equiv./ton HC) permissible for such facility in the Shell group. On the

other hand it shows that the facility consumes only 0.52% energy/ton HC produced permissible for

such upstream facility in the Shell group. These very low CO2 emissions and Energy Efficiency

indices further indicate that the K2S project is ALARP regarding these KPIs.

Further benchmarking against peer facilities performance in the EPG region is presented in Appendix

4.4. (Ref. 8).

3.3 Optimization of K2S GHG Emissions

The emissions sources with potential for optimisation and the measures taken to eliminate or reduce

them to ALARP within the project are given in the table below:


of 34


Source of emissions Measures that were incorporated or were considered to reduce GHG emissions within chosen concept

Maintenance Venting

Operational Venting

Flowline/Pipeline Depressuring

Slugcatcher Relief

Shutdown/Start-up Flaring

During routine maintenance of facilities at the RFM, the flowlines and/or Manifold need to be depressurised. The flowlines and production headers are sectionalized in order to minimize the inventory of gas vented per maintenance session, This eliminates the need to depressurise entire manifold during partial maintenance session.

Implementing HIPPS rather than a relief valve system in design for over pressure protection of carbon steel facilities downstream of the FCV eliminates potential operational vent load at the RFM.

Potential emissions from flowlines/pipeline depressuring to vent at the RFM is reduced by the operational philosophy to depressurise all facilities only to Soku LGSP where it is flared instead.

Installation of PZA-HH on the Slugcatcher at Soku LGSP will reduce demand on installed relief valve. This reduces relief events and consequently reduces flaring emissions at the Soku LGSP.

After shutdown and restart-up of Kolo Creek inlet facilities at Soku LGSP, pipeline NAG stream need to be brought back to normal operating pressure of 101 barg. This may be achieved by depressuring/flaring the pipeline gas stream until the operating point is established. Failure to do so will result in surge into the plant at a rate in excess of the slugcatcher relief capacity. However, installation of FCV upstream of the Slugcatcher at Soku LGSP which controls both the NAG stream flow and pressure into the plant helps to re-pressurize the plant from potential upstream NAG pipeline MOP of circa 136 barg without requirement for excessive depressurization, relief and flaring at the Soku LGSP.

Table 3.2: Sources of emissions & Measures to reduce to ALARP.

Additional sources of emissions are fugitive emissions from piping valves and flanges hence there are no opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions at this stage.SSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


3.4 Optimization of K2S Energy Consumption

The sources of energy usage with potential for optimisation and the measures that were considered and incorporated to reduce energy usage in the project are given in the table below:

Source of usage Measures that were incorporated or were considered to reduce energy usage within chosen concept

Hydrate Inhibition Pumps Hydrate Assessments indicate that there are no hydrate risks during normal operation due to very high upstream well FTHT. However, during black start up (after prolonged well shut-in), the potential for hydrate formation downstream of FCV is high. Hence, there may be need to design for higher capacity hydrate inhibition pump and higher capacity power generator.

To avoid this, FEED:- Recommends that back pressurising of flowlines from

Soku shall be the primary strategy for well start up with black start-up (and inhibition package) as back up.

- Designed a loopline from the Kolo Creek Phase I NAG Pipeline to the K2S Manifold to serve as alternative for back pressurising of flowlines during well start up.

- Designed lagging on the flowlines upstream of the FCV, besides other functions, also serve to retain much of the well FTHT within the well fluid, thereby operating outside the hydrate formation region and reducing demand on the inhibition pumps.

Corrosion Inhibition Pumps The corrosion inhibition pumps were sized on the maximum gas production per well (400 MMScfd). However, optimisation of the power requirement for these pumps was done in FEED by implementing flow logic from the pipeline’s gas meter which controls the corrosion inhibition injection line’s FCV based on calculated dosing rate per K2S production. This strategy ensures that the inhibition pumps’ power demand is proportional to production rather than on the maximum design rate.

Table 3.3: Sources of energy usage & Measures to reduce to ALARP.

The above energy consumption sources are the utility systems and are at the Kolo Creek RFM end. However, due to the high pressure (i.e. high energy) NAG fluid system under consideration, there are no requirements for pumps and compressors along the process path. Hence, there are no opportunities to further optimise energy use.


of 34



of 34


3.5 Assessment of GHG emissions Monitoring and Measurement in Design

Proper measurement and monitoring is critical for sound GHG emissions and Energy Management.

Table 3.4 below highlights the most significant design elements proposed for implementation to

improve process parameters necessary for GHG Emission and Energy management of the Kolo

Creek Deep project. .

Variable Design Element Comments

Vents Orifice Meter (Relief Vent Stack)

Orifice Meter (Closed Drain Vent Stack)

To record and build Kolo Creek RFM vent data.

See Attachment 5.3

Gas Engine Generators fuel gas consumption

Gas Meters Part of Vendor packages KOLS2-A-8101 A/B

To record and build Kolo Creek RFM fuel gas consumption data.

Gas Engine Power generation

Power Meters Part of Vendor packages KOLS2-A-8101 A/B

To record and build Kolo Creek RFM power generation data.

Flare gas Ultrasonic Meter (K2S Flare Sub-Header)

To record and build Kolo Creek Flare Gas data.

Table 3.4: GHG Emissions Monitoring and Measurement Design Elements

THESE PARAMETERS SHALL BE MEASURED, TOTALISED WHERE APPLICABLE AND

REPORTED THROUGH THE PAS.

3.6 Recommendations

The above assessment carried out was premised on the boundary depicted in Figure 2.2, preliminary

data available at FEED stage and assumptions in section 6.0. This boundary is based on the project

objective of filling identified ullage at the Soku LGSP in the coming years (Ref. 1). As such the impact

of the Kolo Creek NAG project on the Soku LGSP regarding GHG emission and Energy usage within

downstream processing plant is considered minimal. However for future update the following

recommendations are made:

1. A comprehensive GHG and Energy Management Plan for Soku LGSP should be

developed/updated with Kolo Creek Deep NAG facilities and production forecast integrated in

the computations.

2. Venting and flaring scenarios shall be identified, quantified and calculations updated

appropriately during detailed design.SSG-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000 R01 SSAGS GHG & EE MANAGEMENT PLAN

of 34


3. Future updates should include recent modifications to the Soku LGSP consisting:

a. the Soku Condensate Spiking System

b. the Soku Flare Gas Reduction System


of 34


References

In addition to information received from the site visit, the following documents were utilized when writing this report:

1. Kolo Creek Deep Field Development to Soku Project (BfD), GBU-DMG-GEN-AA7704-0001.2. GUIOGP Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Management Plan - GBU-DMG-GEN-F08-

000053. EP Global Environmental Standards, EP2005-0161-ST.4. Identify, Assess, Select, Define and Execute - GHG and Energy Management Plan Template -

EP2005-0161-TO-805. Group Performance, Monitoring and Reporting Manual (PMR), Group HSE.6. API Compendium of Methodologies for GHG Emissions estimation, API.7. CAPP Guide on Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CAPP.8. CO2 Baseline Benchmarking Review, report GS. 08.50.988, July 2008.9. EP CO2 Emissions Benchmarking Study Report September 200710. Cost Premises for Surface Facilities (for BP09 Programme) SPDC-2009-04-0000007211. Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2003.12. Calculation tool for Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol,

July 2005. 13. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry, API

August 2009.14. K2S Heat & Mass Balance Sheet - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX1216-00001-00015. K2S Relief Blowdown and Flaring Philosophy (Addendum) - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX5534-00002-

00016. K2S Process Flow Scheme - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX2366-00001-00117. K2S NAG Flowline HIPPS Header (Typical) - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-PX2365-10002-00118. K2S NAG Fuel Gas Scrubber Tie-In - K2S-TPEF-KOLS1-PX2365-69001-001 19. K2S NAG Manifold Vent Stacks Tie-In - K2S-TPEF-KOLS1-PX2365-66001-00120. K2S NAG Bulkline Pig Launcher - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-PX2365-10011-00121. K2S Soku LGSP Kolo Creek NAG Pig Receiver - K2S-TPEF-SOKG1-PX2365-10012-00122. K2S SOKU LGSP Kolo Creek NAG Pig Slugcatcher - K2S-TPEF-SOKG1-PX2365-11001-00123. K2S Electrical Load Schedule - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-EA4329-00001-00024. K2S Pipeline Hydraulic Study Report - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000


of 34


4.0 Appendices

4.1 K2S Wells Production Forecast

4.2 Mechanical Rotating equipment load list

4.3 K2S Electrical Load List


of 34


Projects & TechnologySCiN Engineering Design Office

of 34RestrictedECCN: EAR 99 DeminimusThis document is made available subject to the condition that the recipient will neither use nor disclose the contents except as agreed in writing with the copyright owner. Copyright is vested in Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd. © All rights reserved.Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-

00001 R02

5.0 ATTACHMENT

5.1 K2S GHG Emission & EE Baseline Calculation (9 pages)

5.2 K2S GHG Emission & EE KPIs Calculator (2 pages)

5.3 PMT Decision on Orifice Meters on Vent Stack.

of 34Doc. no.: GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-00001

The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-

00001 R02

of 34Doc. no.: GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-00001

The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.

greenhouse gas and energy efficiency report_brown.docx

Documents