Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report - Brown

Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Efficiency Report
Project
Originating
Company
Document Title
Gbaran Phase 3A Abasere Project

SCiN Engineering Design Office
Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report
Document
Number
GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-00001
Document
Revision
R02
Document Status
Originator /
Author
Security
Classification
ECCN
Issue Date
Issued for Review

Harold B.
Restricted
EAR 99
25-April-16
Revision History is
shown next page
Rev
#
Date of
Issue
Status
Description
Originato
r
Checker
Appr
R03
7-Mar-16
Issued for Review Harold B.
Akinloye
B.
Anumba C
R02
7-Mar-16
Issued for Review Akinbote
Akinloye
Anumba C
Page 1 of 32
Doc. no.: GBU3A-SEDO-ABAF1-PX3363-00001

The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
R01
15-Dec15
Issued for Review
A.J
B.
Akinbote
A.J.
Akinloye
B.
Anumba C
Page 2 of 32
ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT/APPROVAL RECORD

Party
Ref
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+Space
5. Special Characters such as degree (C) refer to: http://www.altcodes.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 History
Rev No Date of issue
R01
13-Nov-15
Reason for Issue / Change

Issued for Review Comments
Page 3 of 32

Page 4 of 32
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Objectives
1.3. Abasere Project Overview
1.4. Work Scope based on Basis for Design
1.5. Report Scope
1.6. Connections to Adjacent facility
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY USE
2.1. Production Forecast
2.2. Mass, Energy and GHG Balances
2.3. Greenhouse gas emission forecast and CPF energy use
CONCLUSION
ABBREVIATIONS
ATTACHMENTS
REFERENCES
Page 5 of 32
Tables
Table 1: Overall emissions forecast and energy consumption
Table 2: Abasere GHG forecast
Table 3: Abasere energy consumption
6
11
12
Page 6 of 32
Figures
Figure 1: Abasere Project Scope Overview
Figure 2: Overview of Design Scope
Figure 2.1: Abasere production forecast
8
9
10
Page 7 of 32
1. Introduction
2.
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 Generator
HC
Hydrocarbon
Page 8 of 32
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
RFM
SCEI
SCiN
Responsible Accountable Consults Inform

Remote Field Manifold
Shell CO2 Emission Index
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 Unit
WIP
Water Injection Plant
Page 9 of 32
XHP
Extra High Pressure
Page 10 of 32
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.
Page 11 of 32
1.0
1.1
Introduction
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 5year 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.
Page 12 of 32
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 Overview
Gbaran 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 SPDCs
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 comingled 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:
Page 13 of 32
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.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
There are 3 Production Headers

Each Production Header has 2-3 flowlines from F1 & F2 wells
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
Page 14 of 32
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.
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)
Business
Plan
IAP
(MT,LT)
Operating
Philosophy
GHG/EMP
Master Plan
HSE Plan
ARP
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 SPDCs operations. There have been penalties in place since the early 1990s for the
flaring of gas. Future regulation will be far more stringent; Nigerias 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.
Page 15 of 32
1.6
Applicable Standards, Manuals and Methodology

The following documents are related to this Energy and GHG Management Plan:
1.7
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
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:
1.9
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
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
Page 16 of 32
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
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
Developm
ent
Engineer
HSE
Regional
Economics
Team
Responsible
Consult
Consult
Consult
Develop and update

Energy & GHG
Management Plan
Consult
Accountable
(Develops
first issue)
Economic evaluation
of identified
opportunities
Accountable
Consult
Responsible Responsi
(minor
ble (major
projects)
projects)
Inform
Consult
Select opportunities
for implementation
Accountable
Consult
Responsible
Consult
Consult
Prepare IPs / seek

carbon management
functional support
Consult
Consult
Accountable Accounta
(minor
ble (major
projects)
projects)
Inform
Inform
Develop, implement
and monitor
Implementation Plan
Accountable
Responsible
(minor
ble (Major
Projects)
projects)
Consult
Inform
Forecast GHG
emissions and
Energy consumption
Accountable
Consult
(minor
ble (Major
Projects)
projects)
Consult
Inform
Emissions Target
setting
Accountable
Responsible
Responsible
Inform
Responsi
ble
Consult
Assurance
Responsible
Accountable
Consult
Inform
Responsi
ble
Inform
Consult
Table 1-1: Roles and Responsibilities for GHG and Energy Management Plan
Page 17 of 32
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
20.51
48.45
59.16
76.07
88.33
97.95
106.32
11.66
140.44
151.64
1945.
2356.1
2964.4
3355.6
3609.1
3783.6
3942.0
3386.6
22
Gas
(MMsc
fd)
Conde
nsate
781.35
(stbpd)
Table 2.1:
3326.31
Production forecast for Abasere Field Deep wells producing to Soku LGSP
Page 18 of 32
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
Soku LGSP
Page 19 of 32
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.
Page 20 of 32
Parameter
Units
Total
Forecast Period
Years
10
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
Tonne HC
8,857,445.0
Tonne CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC
0.0004929
Combustion emissions
intensity
0.0000
Flaring emissions intensity
0.0000000
Venting emissions intensity
0.0000151
Fugitive emissions intensity
0.0000727
Total indirect emissions intensity
0.0004046
Total emissions intensity
0.0005
Total emissions intensity
kg CO2 equiv. / Tonne HC
0.49
Total direct emissions
Total hydrocarbon production

Total direct emissions intensity
Table 2.3 Greenhouse gas emissions summary for Abasere Field Project
Abasere Forecast (2022-2031) GHG Emissions Breakdown
Fugitive; 15%
Venting; 3%
Page 21 of 32
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
million GJ
0.53
million Tonne
8.85
GJ/Tonne of HC
0.013
Electric power consumption over forecast period

Hydrocarbon production over forecast period
Energy intensity
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
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
Tonne HC / bbl
0.117
Tonne HC / m3(st)
0.00081
Generated power to CO2

emissions
Condensate volume to HC mass

Gas volume to HC mass
Table 2.5 Conversion factors use for Abasere Field study
Page 22 of 32
3.0
3.1
DEMONSTRATION OF ALARP IN FEED
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.
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
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).
Page 23 of 32
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:
Page 24 of 32
Source of emissions
Measures that were incorporated or were considered to reduce

GHG emissions within chosen concept
Maintenance Venting
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.
Operational Venting
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.
Flowline/Pipeline
Depressuring
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.
Slugcatcher Relief
Shutdown/Start-up Flaring
Table 3.2:
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.
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.
Page 25 of 32
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
Table 3.3:
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 pipelines gas meter which
controls the corrosion inhibition injection lines 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.
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.
Page 26 of 32
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
Vents
Design Element
Comments
Orifice Meter (Relief Vent Stack)
To record and build Kolo Creek

RFM vent data.
Orifice Meter (Closed Drain Vent

Stack)
See Attachment 5.3

Gas Engine Generators fuel
gas consumption
Gas Meters Part of Vendor

packages KOLS2-A-8101 A/B

RFM fuel gas consumption
data.
Gas
Engine
generation
Power Meters Part of Vendor

packages KOLS2-A-8101 A/B

RFM power generation data.
Ultrasonic Meter (K2S Flare SubHeader)

Flare Gas data.
Power
Flare gas
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.
3. Future updates should include recent modifications to the Soku LGSP consisting:
Page 27 of 32
a. the Soku Condensate Spiking System

b. the Soku Flare Gas Reduction System
Page 28 of 32
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-F0800005
3. EP Global Environmental Standards, EP2005-0161-ST.
4. Identify, Assess, Select, Define and Execute - GHG and Energy Management Plan Template EP2005-0161-TO-80
5. 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 2007
10. Cost Premises for Surface Facilities (for BP09 Programme) SPDC-2009-04-00000072
11. 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-PX1216-00001-000
15. K2S Relief Blowdown and Flaring Philosophy (Addendum) - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX5534-00002000
16. K2S Process Flow Scheme - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX2366-00001-001
17. K2S NAG Flowline HIPPS Header (Typical) - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-PX2365-10002-001
18. K2S NAG Fuel Gas Scrubber Tie-In - K2S-TPEF-KOLS1-PX2365-69001-001
19. K2S NAG Manifold Vent Stacks Tie-In - K2S-TPEF-KOLS1-PX2365-66001-001
20. K2S NAG Bulkline Pig Launcher - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-PX2365-10011-001
21. K2S Soku LGSP Kolo Creek NAG Pig Receiver - K2S-TPEF-SOKG1-PX2365-10012-001
22. K2S SOKU LGSP Kolo Creek NAG Pig Slugcatcher - K2S-TPEF-SOKG1-PX2365-11001-001
23. K2S Electrical Load Schedule - K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-EA4329-00001-000
24. K2S Pipeline Hydraulic Study Report - K2S-TPEF-GEN-PX8380-00001-000
Page 29 of 32
4.0
Appendices
4.1
K2S Wells Production Forecast
FW
Kocr_Well_forecast_HFPT_withP.msg
4.2
Mechanical Rotating equipment load list
Input to GHG
Emissions.msg
4.3
K2S Electrical Load List
Copy of
K2S-TPEF-KOLS2-EA4329-00001-000-R04 B Electrical Load Schedule.msg
Page 30 of 32
5.0
5.1
ATTACHMENT
K2S GHG Emission & EE Baseline Calculation (9 pages)
K2S Baseline
Calculations R01.xls
5.2
K2S GHG Emission & EE KPIs Calculator (2 pages)
K2S - KPIs Calculator

with Thermal EOR and new calculations .xls
5.3
PMT Decision on Orifice Meters on Vent Stack.
RE K2S PMT Process

Review - Removal of GHG Flowmeters on the vent stack header..msg
Page 31 of 32
Page 32 of 32

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report - Brown

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency Report - Brown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse Gas and Energy

Gbaran Phase 3A Abasere Project

Issued for Review

Issued for Review Harold B.

Issued for Review Akinbote

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

Issued for Review

ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT/APPROVAL RECORD

Reason for Issue / Change

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

Associated Gas / Associated Gas Gathering

As Low As Reasonably Practicable

Asset Reference Plan

Bonny Crude Oil Terminal

Basis For Design

Bonny Fuel Gas

Bonny Non-Associated Gas

Barrels Per Day

Bayelsa State Electricity Board

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon Development Mechanism

Carbon Emission Index

Condensate Gas Ratio

Crude Loading Platform

Crude Oil Tanks

Central Processing Facilities

Discipline Controlled Assurance Framework

Decision Review Board

Energy Management Plan

Flow Control Valve

Field Development Plan

Front End Engineering Design

Field Logistic Base

Floating Production Storage and Offloading

Global Environmental Standards

Generic Fitting Count

GHG/EEMP Green House Gas & Energy Efficiency Management Plan

Gas Liquid Ratio

Gas Oil Ratio

Gas Receiving Facility

Gas Turbine/ Gas Turbine Generator

High Integrity Pressure Protection System

Health Safety & Environment

Integrated Activity Plan

Key Performance Indicator

LNG Gas Supply Plant

Lower Heating Value

Leaking Valve Detection and Repair

Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day

Maximum Operating Pressure

Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas

New Process Area

Net Present Value

Offshore Gas Gathering System

Opportunity Realisation Process

Proposals for Implementation

Process Operating Procedures Manual

Project Screening Value

Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valve

Responsible Accountable Consults Inform

Shell Petroleum Development Company