Post on 25-Feb-2022
1 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
WÄRTSILÄ CORPORATION
Wärtsilä – lifecycle power solutions
SHIP
POWER
POWER
PLANTS
SERVICES
2 © Wärtsilä WÄRTSILÄ CORPORATION
Net sales €5,3 bn
18,000 employees
170 locations worldwide
3 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
Global oil & gas sector emissions
• Estimate by Carbon Limits (Norway) • Very low level of accuracy due to absence of aggregated, monitored operational data.
MMtCO2e
500
1,000
Venting (CH4) Fugitives (CH4) Flaring (CO2+CH4)
Gas treatment (CO2)
Wasted energy
630 570 ~550 ~500
~ 6-8% of global GHG emissions
Flares waste
+75GW power
4 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
Flexible solutions for onshore oil & gas
Field Power Plants 5 – 200 MW
Associated Gas fired (Flare gas)
Fuel Sharing (associated gas + crude)
Natural gas (pipeline quality)
Crude Oil fired
Oil Pump Drives 1 – 15 MW / unit
Crude Oil fired
Natural Gas fired
Associated gas
Compressor Drives 4 – 9 MW / unit
Natural Gas fired
Associated Gas fired
Fuel Sharing (associated gas + crude)
CO2 emission reductions
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
t C
O2
0
200 000
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1 200 000
1 400 000
1 600 000
Total emission reductions / Year Cumulative emission reductions
5 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
Petroamazonas gas optimization project, Ecuador
“Optimización Generación Eléctrica” started 2009
US$100 million investment
Produces 100.000 boe p.d. p (+500.000 b water)
Power demand 61MW 83MW by 2012
AG capacity to 59MW by end of 2010
Centralized power gen 150 30 units
Wärtsilä supplying gas/crude engines and co-
developing CDM project under AM 0009
Block 15 divided into 2 sections,
Flaring currently 4 locations, 30 locations needing power
drilling
Section ILYP • Optimization of gas utilization
• Centralized power production
• Equipment overhaul/improvement.
Section Eden Yuturi / Pañacocha • New generation capacity
• Optimization of gas utilization
Wärtsilä 18V32LN Gas-Crude conversion
• The gas diesel engine is a dual fuel / multi
fuel engine that is designed to operate in
three modes.
– Liquid fuel mode, using MDO/LFO, HFO
or Crude Oil as main fuel.
– Gas fuel mode, using gas as main fuel
ignited with a small amount of liquid fuel.
– Fuel sharing
• In liquid fuel mode the engine works as an
ordinary diesel engine.
• In gas fuel mode the engine is adapting the
direct gas injection technique for gas
injection.
• In fuel sharing the engine is using both liquid
and gas in different ratios
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fuel Sharing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Fuel oil operation
Engine load%
Gas
share %
Diesel
share %
GD operation
Transfer window
Fuel Sharing
8 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
CDM projects under AM0009
Gas flare reduction – AM0009
Total Annual CERs
Rejected or withdrawn 10 1 126 000
Total active projects 20 11 414 000
Registered with the UNFCCC 8 8 326 000
- Of which with issued CERs 2 1 068 000
Under review 1 291 000
Under validation 11 4 026 000
Source: GGFR presentation, Carbon Expo, May 2010
9 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010 R. Stoor
Issue 1: Dynamic gas volume and quality
Comportamiento Suministro Gas CPF dia completo 15 y
21 de marzo 2009
0.0000
2.0000
4.0000
6.0000
8.0000
10.0000
12.0000
14.0000
16.0000
mm
pc
pd
150309
210309
10 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
Issue 2: Dynamic field development
11 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010 R. Stoor
Issue 3: Complexity of engineering
ILYP
• 50*30km2 in size
•150 generation units
• over 20 locations operating independently
• distributed power generation
• no centralized gas handling
12 © Wärtsilä 22 October 2010
Viewpoints on AM0009
• Take into account the dynamic nature of oil field development in the
demands of historical data and monitoring
Individual well flaring data is impractical and conflicts with fiels
development activities
• Recognize the complexity of associated gas as a fuel source / feedstock
it is an inherently unstable and declining fuel which means that past
use of AG is not a limiting factor for methodology application
• Allow flexibility in adapting technology to the existing infrastructure and
local realities as there are significant differences between fields
The focus on flare points at the level of oil wells does not recognize the
complexity of the oil field infrastructure and the varied location of the flare
points
• Methodology needs to be updated to account for more complex baselines
recognize the difference in flaring at facility and field level and that part
of associated gas can be used on site in the absence of the project.