Upstream Energy Benchmarking: Identifying Energy Improvement and GHG Reduction Opportunities For Current and Future Operations, Including Technology Gaps

Abstract

Abstract Emissions from energy use are the oil and gas industry's largest direct GHG source. Simple, top-down metrics (eg energy per barrel) do not account for the inherent differences between asset types (eg LNG, pipelines) and are insufficient to identify specific improvement opportunities. Drawing on our downstream experience, BP has developed a modular, bottom-up energy benchmarking approach for upstream. This focuses on energy performance, distinguishing it from underlying, inherent energy use. The energy benchmark for each facility is the sum of individual processing ‘modules’ appropriate to that facility - eg gas compression, liquids pumping, etc. Each module's benchmark is based on its fluid throughput, together with key factors that determine energy demand - eg inlet and outlet pressures, equipment efficiencies, etc. The total benchmark energy for the facility is compared to the energy it actually uses to determine its Energy Performance Index (EPI), so a facility that uses no more energy than its benchmark has an EPI of 100, whilst one using twice the benchmark has an EPI of 200, etc. All BP's operated upstream facilities have been energy benchmarked using this methodology and there was a range of outcomes. The reasons for this are multiple: age, design, complexity, current throughput, as well as other operational factors, and further analysis is required to understand individual facility results better. Facilities also differ considerably in energy use: from 15 MWth for a pipeline, to more than 1,000 MWth for a Gas Liquefaction (LNG) plant. Facility size and EPI together establish the facility's ‘energy opportunity gap’; that is, the gap between actual and benchmark energy. This energy performance opportunity data has been used to prioritize where to focus supplementary, deep-dive energy reviews with the aim of identifying economic energy performance improvement opportunities. Additionally, full energy gap analysis should help identify and quantify common opportunity themes and potential technology gaps across our upstream portfolio (eg waste heat). Given the challenges to implementing the more fundamental opportunities to existing operating facilities, especially offshore, the most significant findings are more applicable to future operations (ie major projects currently in development). Hence, as part of our forward GHG plans, energy benchmarking is to be applied to future major upstream projects. The approach applies maximum energy supply efficiency curves based on facility heat-to-power energy demand ratios. Minimal data input required is collected via simple spreadsheet (only for modules applicable to that facility). This modular benchmarking approach can be readily expanded to include other GHG emission sources: eg flaring (based on flaring categorization: eg routine, non-routine, safety-related), and methane (based on methane sources: eg flaring, pneumatics, fugitives, vents, etc.), and thus in combination achieve overall facility GHG benchmarking.