upstream energy efficiency peter adam - wko.at · 2017-03-16 · page 7 november 2011 peter adam...

© Siemens AG 2011. All rights reserved.

Upstream Energy Efficiency Peter Adam Executive Vice President Strategy Siemens Energy, Oil & Gas Division

E O ST


November 2011 Peter Adam

Energy – two linked concerns – two drivers

Energy Security Climate Change

Population Growth and Wealth Creation

E O ST



Energy demand will continue to grow

Data: BP Statistical Review and the United Nations From: DW

► China and India have only just begun

► Strong call for hydrocarbons development in coming two decades

E O ST



World primary energy demand by fuel and scenario

Source: IEA-WEO 2010

(Mtoe)

► Fossil fuels will remain the backbone of future primary energy supply

► Strong call for hydrocarbons development in coming decades

E O ST



World energy related CO2 emissions - abatement potentials

Source: IEA-WEO 2010

► Energy efficiency to contribute half the improvement over coming 25 years

► But something is missing …

E O ST



O&G industry CO2 emissions in million

metric tons @ 100% carbon conversion

O&G the most energy-intensive industry with a huge carbon footprint

► O&G consumes up to 20% of its production in its own processes (heat value)

► 12% of global annual energy-related CO2 emissions

► The O&G industry will have to play a major role in the climate debate in coming years

The World‘s Top Energy Intensive Industries

Annual Heat Input (million metric tons oil equivalent)

578

Oil & Gas

512

Iron & Steel

434

Refining

196

Cement

359

Petchems &

Chemicals

(155)

Down-

stream

O&G

Upstream

Midstream

Refining

Petrochemicals

2000

1000

3000

0 Source: IEA, DOE, Siemens / 2008 Source: IEA, DOE, Siemens / 2008

E O ST



Energy is used differently along the O&G value chain

► Main energy use in up- and midstream for „fluid transfer“ (compression, pumping)

► Main energy use downstream for „heat transfer“ in burners, steam generators

and chillers

Upstream Midstream

75-85% for fluid transfer

(compression & pumping)

~ 99% for fluid transfer (compression

or pumping in transmission)

Downstream

> 90% for heat transfer

(fired heaters, chillers, steam)

E O ST



► Central power schemes could achieve major

improvements

Option A:

20% efficiency.

(mechanical drive)

Option B:

34% efficiency

(open cycle all-E)

Option C:

50% efficiency

(combined-cycle)

Upstream energy efficiency is low by any standard

E O ST



Expected incremental energy demand

Up- and midstream operations will require substantial

incremental energy

E O ST



► There are many reasons for low upstream efficiencies,

no finger pointing

► Options to be explored

► Required technologies exist today

Upstream:

~ 20% average efficiency

(excl. flaring & fugitives)

Modern CCPP

> 60% energy efficiency

Upstream energy efficiency is low by any standard

E O ST



► Age of producing assets (30, 40 and 50 years)

► Equipment typically of same age i.e. „old tech“

► Old assets are past peak production and in decline

= equipment operating under part-load conditions

= production engineers love spinning reserves

► Once in operation technical modifications are difficult to

implement - production losses incurred typically outweigh the

benefits from modification

► 30-50 years ago climate change, greenhouse gases, energy

efficiency, fuel value were non-existing topics in the industry

► Associated gas has different value in upstream operations,

sometimes negative value as long as there is no market for it

(e.g. Alaska North Slope)

There are many reasons for low upstream energy efficiency

Option A:

20% efficiency.

(mechanical drive)

E O ST



► New field developments - where energy efficiency can be considered in the conceptual design phase

► Mature field re-developments - where the residual reserves value of the field justifies a major re-development effort - where the equipment in operation ist past its original design life - many fields around the world are already in or close to that stage of life - most fields show considerably more recoverable reserves than originally estimated

Windows of opportunity

E O ST



Benefits of central power schemes

Climate Change Security of Supply People Shortage

Higher efficiencies

(50+ % improvem.)

Proportionally lower

CO2 emissions

Concentration of

emitting sources in

one location

(pre-requisite for

CCS *)

Less fuel

More sale

Improved asset

productivity and

availability

(N+1, E-system

management)

Enabling technology

(subsea operations)

Easier remote and

unmanned operations

Less maintenance

More failure resilient

(N+1, E-system

management)

► Basic technologies exist today, no rocket science !

Improved asset economics

Access Restrictions

Sustainability as an

extra value propo-

sition?

Help host govern-

ments to reach

climate targets

Local value added

options

Door opener

*) Carbon capture and storage

E O ST



Economic benefits of central power schemes

► All benefits need consideration – major impact from uptime improvements

► Beware – projects compete with alternative investment options

E O ST



Power from shore North Sea Power Concept (2000) – Thinking Big

► 2-3 GWs offshore load, 68 platforms included

► 99.8% availability

► Not realized due to low oil price environment at the time

► Norway revisiting power from shore for new offshore

developments

Saltir

(165MW)

Oseberg

(200MW)

NW Hutton

(650MW)

Source: BP

UK

Norway

Don

Ekofisk

(210MW)

Forties

(270MW)

Beryl

(150MW)

Brae/Miller

(200MW)

upstream energy efficiency peter adam - wko.at · 2017-03-16 · page 7 november 2011 peter adam...

Documents