Gas Quality: Competition Policy and Economic Development in Western Australia K. Peter Kolf Senior...
-
Upload
eustace-jones -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Gas Quality: Competition Policy and Economic Development in Western Australia K. Peter Kolf Senior...
Gas Quality: Competition Policy Gas Quality: Competition Policy and Economic Development in and Economic Development in
Western Australia Western Australia
K. Peter KolfSenior ManagerOffice of Energy
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
Mostly a commercial issue
To do with access to the DBNGP
Spill over into safety & technical areas
Customer satisfaction a major issue
Some environmental concerns
The Gas Quality The Gas Quality Debate in Western Debate in Western AustraliaAustralia
Typical Natural Gas Typical Natural Gas Compositions and Compositions and PropertiesProperties
Source: Gas & Fuel Corp of Vic (www.gasfuel.com.au) & WA Office of Energy
W AustNorth West
Shelf
Sth Aust& NSW
Gidgealpa
QldRoma
Comment
Methane CH4 (% by vol) 88.1 91.1 87.4 Combustion
Ethane C2H6 (% by vol) 4.9 4.7 5.4 Comb/Feedsock
Propane C3H8 (% by vol) 2.3 1.02 1.9 Comb/LPG
Butane C4H10 (% by vol) 0.7 0.3 0.8 Comb/LPG
Pentane C5H12 (% by vol) 0.1 0.1 0.5 Condensate
N2 + O2 (% by vol) 1.4 0.4 3.6 Inert
CO2 (% by vol) 2.6 2.4 0.4 Inert/Corrosive
Other Components:
Total Sulphur (mg/m3) n/a n/a n/a Env’tal/Corrosive/Safety
Hydrogen Sulphide (mg/m3) n/a n/a n/a Env’tal/Safety
Water Vapour (mg/m3) n/a n/a n/a Corrosive
Mercury n/a n/a n/a Corrosive
Dust, Gums etc n/a n/a n/a Various
Radioactive (Bq/m3) n/a n/a n/a Env’tal/Safety
Properties:
Heating Value (MJ/m3) 39.6 39.0 40.1Relative Density (air=1) 0.643 0.619 0.64Wobbe Index 49.4 49.6 50.1
Industry & Power Gen. 85.5%Low SulphurLow Hydrogen Sulphide
Commercial & Residential 5.9%Minimum Wobbe Index
LPG 5.5%High LPGLow CO2
Low N2
Moderate 33.9%
Extensive 21.7%
SUPPLY
Feedstock 3.1%Low LPGLow CO2 Low N2
DEMAND
Minimum 44.4%
Gas Supply and DemandGas Supply and DemandLocal WALocal WA
Gas Resources(Excluding LNG contracts)
Gas Production1995/96 Local WA
ModerateTreatment 27.7%
ExtensiveTreatment 63.6%
MinimumTreatment 8.7%
Gas Resources & Gas Resources & ProductionProduction
ModerateTreatment 33.9%
ExtensiveTreatment 21.7%
MinimumTreatment 44.4%
Inlet Gas Guality Inlet Gas Guality EnvelopesEnvelopes
Methane & Nitrogen only
Methane & Propane only
WI = 46.0 MJ/m3
WI = 51.5 MJ/m3
100% Methane
Inerts=7.0%, CO2=4.0%
HHV = 42.3 MJ/m3, CO2=4.0%
WI = 47.3 MJ/m3
Inerts=5.0%, CO2=3.6%
HHV = 37.3 MJ/m3, CO2=0%
HHV = 41.0 MJ/m3, CO2=3.6%
HHV = 35.1 MJ/m3, CO2=0%
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Propane + Nitrogen gas equivalent (mol%)
Wob
be In
dex
(MJ/
m3 )
North West Shelf Gas North West Shelf Gas FieldsFields
CS 2
CS 1
DampierNorth West Shelf Project
Pilbara
GGPDBNGP
Wandoo
North RankinGoodwyn
CampbellSinbad
Harriet
Barrow IslandEast Spar
Crest
Skate
Griffin
Chinook
TubridgiRoller
Saladin
Cossack
Wanaea
Rosette
Tidepole
Gorgon
Angel
Bambra
ChrysaorDionysus
Echo
Perseus
Wilcox
WonnichMaitland
Keast
Marcedon/Pyrenees
West Tryal Rocks
Spar
Pasco
Scarborough
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
113.5 114.0 114.5 115.0 115.5 116.0 116.5 117.0 117.5 118.0
Longitude (degree)
Latit
ude
(deg
ree)
Developed Reserves
Undeveloped Reserves
Static Resources
INDIAN OCEAN
Exmouth
22.0
22.5
113.0
BROWSEBASIN
BONAPARTEBASIN
CANNINGBASIN
OFFICERBASIN
EUCLABASIN
PERTHBASIN
CARNAVONBASIN
Inlet Gas GualityInlet Gas Guality(Raw Gas)(Raw Gas)
Wob
be In
dex
(MJ/
cu m
)
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Propane + Nitrogen gas equivalent (mol%)
NOTE:
1. Raw gas is assumed. No minimum treatment.2. Dots represent all existing Developed, Undeveloped, Static reserves/resources.
Cat A New Cat A GGT
Inlet Gas GualityInlet Gas Guality(After Minimum Treatment)(After Minimum Treatment)
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Propane + Nitrogen gas equivalent (mol%)
Wob
be In
dex
(MJ/
cu m
)
NOTE :
1. Dots represent all existing Developed, Undeveloped, Static reserves/resources.
Cat A New Cat A GGT
Inlet Gas GualityInlet Gas Guality(After Moderate Treatment, into Cat A)(After Moderate Treatment, into Cat A)
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Propane + Nitrogen gas equivalent (mol%)
Wob
be In
dex
(MJ/
cu m
)
NOTE :
1. Dots represent all existing Developed, Undeveloped, Static reserves/resources.3. Fields outside CAT A require high cost processing.
Cat A New Cat A GGT
Natural Gas in WANatural Gas in WA
Minimum Treatment
Moderate Treatment
Extensive Treatment
Browse & Bonaparte Basins
Current DBNGP Spec.
Widening DBNGP Spec.
High cost CO2 or N2 removal
Committed for local contracts & export
Reasonable probability future
contracts
Low probability future contracts
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Reserves/ Resources 1997
Total DemandGas Quality(excluding Browse & Bonaparte Basin)
PJ Total: 51 EJ
Total: 40 EJTotal: 43 EJ
Natural Gas in WANatural Gas in WA
NWS Gas(after moderate or
minimum treatment)
Other fields
Extensive Treatment
Browse & Bonaparte Basin
Current DBNGP Spec.
Widening DBNGP Spec.
High cost CO2 or N2 removal
Committed for local contracts
Poss. NWSG contract ext.
Additional DBNGP
GGP
Pilbara
Committed for export
LNG Contract Extension
LNG Train 4
LNG Train 5
LNG Train 6 (Gorgon)
LNG Train 7 (Gorgon)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Reserves/Resources 1997
Gas Quality(excluding Browse & Bonaparte Basin)
Total Demand
PJ
(Current DBNGP Spec)
Total: 40 EJ
Total: 51 EJ
Total: 43 EJ
Prerequisite for physical interconnection
Gas appliances designed for Australian market should be suitable on any major gas distribution system in Australia
Avoid need for parallel pipeline system with different gas quality if possible
Australian Standard Australian Standard on Gas Quality on Gas Quality
SELECTED COMPONENTSSELECTED COMPONENTSGAS QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS - STATES AND GAS QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS - STATES AND TERRITORIES OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.TERRITORIES OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
Gas Characteristic NSW Vic SouthAust
Qld WADBNGP
WAGGP
NT NewZealand
Heating ValueMJ/m3 (dry)
37.45 36.51 -41.0
37.45 or36.69
35.0 -43.0
39.1 -42.3
35.5 -42.5
38 -47
Wobbe Index 47.4 -51.1
46.02 - 50.86
47.4 -51.5
47 -52
48.5 -51.0
46 -51.5
47 - 54
46 -52
Total Inerts(mole %)
6% 5% 7%
Total sulphur(mg/m3)
23 45.74 115 50 10 10 30 50
Hydrogen sulphide(mg/m3)
5.7 6.0 11.5 7 2 5 10 5
Carbon dioxide(%v/v)
3 3 3 3.6 3.6 3
Water vapour(mg/m3)
113 112 112 65 48 48 80 100
LPG (Tonnes/TJ)
1.45
Relative Density 0.8
Industrial vs Industrial vs Commercial/ResidedtialCommercial/ResidedtialGas Guality RequirementsGas Guality Requirements
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Propane + Nitrogen gas equivalent (mol%)
Wob
be In
dex
(MJ/
m3 )
IndustrialSpecification
Commercial/ResidentialSpecification
WI = 51.5
WI = 46
WI = 51
WI = 47.3
Changes In Gas Quality Over Changes In Gas Quality Over TimeTime
Time
Wob
be In
dex
WI = 51.5
WI = 46
In line gas quality
Changes In Gas Quality Over Changes In Gas Quality Over TimeTime
Time
Wob
be In
dex
WI = 51.5
WI = 46
In line gas quality
Should Gas Quality provide for Specialised Users (feedstock, natural gas vehicles)?
Should contracts be allowed to limit gas quality specifications?
Is there a need for a Total Inerts Specification?
Should “In Line” Comingling be allowed?
Should transmission charges vary with gas quality?
Who has ownership of gas components?
Other IssuesOther Issues
Increase Total Inerts by 0.5 mol%
Introduce an “Emergency” Gas Quality Specification
Introduce a “New Contracts” Specification
Allow transmission price to vary with gas quality
Allow a “risk premium” to be charged where “in line” comingling takes place
Changes to Gas Quality Changes to Gas Quality Regulations in Western Regulations in Western AustraliaAustralia
Gas Quality is the Gas Industry equivalent to the railway gauge problem
50 cents/GJ penalty if we get it wrong
Ultimate contractual problems
Gas quality appliance requirements that differ across Australia
Hindering of access to gas pipelines
Unnecessary flaring/reinjection of associated gas
Possible duplication of pipelines with different quality specifications
Lost production $7.5 billion (PV $3.8 billion)
ConclusionsConclusions