See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298585909

Electric drive vs gas turbines

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
0 9,841

2 authors, including:

Rainer Kurz
Solar Turbines Incorporated
147 PUBLICATIONS   1,127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rainer Kurz on 11 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of GT2005
ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air
June 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA

GT2005-68003

GAS TURBINES OR ELECTRIC DRIVES IN OFFSHORE APPLICATIONS

Rainer Kurz Cynthia Sheya

Solar Turbines Incorporated Solar Turbines Incorporated

ABSTRACT
Since the topsides of any of these systems have to be
Offshore oil and gas production requires both electric planned and designed based on data with a high
and mechanical power for various applications. uncertainty, and further, since the design parameters
Traditionally, gas turbines have been the driver of choice (such as flow, vapor and liquid composition, and
for both the power generation, compression and larger pressures) can and will change significantly over the life
pump applications. Today, an alternate approach of of the project, flexibility is one of the paramount
electric motor drivers is sometimes considered for pump requirements. Typical offshore or gas field applications
and compressor drivers. In this case, the power for the show a fast ramp up of power requirements (and oil
electric motor and utility power is supplied by larger gas production), with a slow decline in later years.
turbines used as a central power generation plant. This
is sometimes referred to as the “All Electric” solution.
There are several important factors to be evaluated
when considering options and selecting the optimum
solution for this type of application. Based on general
assumptions on the parameters and characteristics of
possible solutions, decision criteria are derived and the
sensitivity of the results relative to varying assumptions
is determined.

INTRODUCTION
Offshore oil and gas production use a variety of
production platform designs, depending generally on
water depth. These platforms (Figure 1) can be firmly
connected to the seafloor - bottom supported structures
such as fixed platforms or compliant towers or vertically
moored structures such as Tension Leg Platforms. They
can be floating without possessing means of propulsion
such as SPAR’s and Floating Production Systems. Or,
they can be floating with means of propulsion (FPSO’s).
In this paper, we will in general not discuss the means of
propulsion as they are governed by different rules than
Figure 1: Offshore platform with gas turbine driven
production facilities. In navigation and propulsion, the
compressors for gas boost.
power supply is considered essential because their
failure would endanger the vessel [1]. The scope of this
paper is to address the production portion of
applications.

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

While not a paramount requirement, but yet important in GT gas turbine
any technical design, is the requirement of simplicity. s isentropic
The best engineering solution is generally the one that is system system
the least complex, least costly, most reliable, most transf transformer
durable, and most maintainable. This is especially true VFD variable frequency drive
for remote locations such as offshore platforms.

The production facilities on a platform may include gas SCENARIOS

turbine driven generators, compressors for gas To evaluate the impact of equipment decisions, a
gathering, and gas export. Enhancing the oil yield may parametric study based on a typical offshore scenario
require water injection (using high pressure water was performed. The duty requires the generation of
pumps), compressors for gas lift or compressors for gas electrical power, as well as the operation of multiple gas
re-injection. In the future, compression for CO2 injection compressors.
might be added. Other topside equipment, such as crude
oil pumps, heaters and others, use electric power. The general assumption is the efficiency of the
compressors and the electric requirements of the
The benchmark for any solution is the comparison of first platform are independent of the scenario - with the
cost, cost of operation (this includes maintenance, and exception of the compressor drives in the all-electric
fuel cost if applicable), emissions (this also depends on solution.
pertinent regulations as well as operating company
guidelines and can include one or more of
NOx,CO,CO2,UHC,VOC and particles), reliability,
availability, and flexibility. Depending on user
philosophy, Total Cost of Ownership, which includes all
the above factors at a discounted level may be used to
compare different alternatives (Miranda et al [2]).

The findings in this paper are not applicable to any on-

shore electric motor drive application, because a major
issue there is the reliance on the electric grid, as well as
the cost of electricity.

NOMENCLATURE
A Availability
LHV Lower heating value
N Integer
P Power
p Failure probability
q Probability to be operational
Q Volume
R Ratio
REL Reliability
Figure 2: Solution 1, using gas turbines both for
Rd Production decrease rate
compression and electrical power generation
r Discount rate
t Time
V Value (in monetary units)
Solution 1 (Figure 2) meets the requirements by
v Rel. value (in monet. units/ Volume)
generating the electrical power using gas turbine driven
W Mass Flow
generators, and driving the individual compressor trains
η Efficiency
with gas turbines. Solution 2 (Figure 3) meets the
requirements by using larger gas turbines for the power
subscripts
generation, and driving the compressor trains by electric
compr compression
motors. The flexibility requirement for the compressors
distr. electr. distribution
mandates variable speed compressors. This is
el electric
accommodated by two shaft gas turbines as compressor
Emot electric motor
drivers in Solution 1 and by variable speed electric
f fuel
motors in Solution 2.
GB gearbox
gen electr. power generation

2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME


Figure 3: Solution 2: Power generation with gas turbines,
compression with electric motor driven compressors
High speed EMD’s were not considered at this time,
because there is insufficient reliability data available.
Any electric motor above about 5MW is a customized
design, but it is worth noting, however, that high speed
electric motors are even more specialized designs,
where replacements of the motor, or of failed major
components would cause significant amounts of
downtime.
It is a valid assumption that the gas turbines for either
solution can operate using a common fuel conditioning
system. The fuel is typically associated gas from the oil
production. Elliott et al [3] have outlined typical
requirements for this type of system.
The high voltage electric motors require a relatively
complicated power distribution system with a multi-tiered
voltage power distribution and motorized, non-arcing
switchgear. If the electric power demand exceeds about
10 to 15 MW, systems with multiple voltage levels
become necessary ; a high voltage system (11 or 13kV)
will have to be installed in addition to the 4-6.6kV
medium voltage system on the platform.
Speed control is achieved through Variable Frequency
Drives (VFDs), requiring isolation transformers, and
either air cooling systems, or, above 6MW, water cooling
systems (coolers, pumps, piping). It is assumed that a
study of the harmonics will define the use of harmonics
filters. Enough space needs to be planned for the motor
control center and switchgear. This will later become
important in the evaluation, because deck space is at a
premium for any platform. For a buoyant platform,
weight is of importance as well.
While we have assumed that the compressors in
Solution 1 are directly connected to the power turbine of
the gas turbine driver, a speed increaser gearbox
between the electric motors and the compressor is
required for Solution 2, due to typical motor speeds of
1500/1800rpm or 3000/3600 rpm .
.
We will not discuss in detail the necessary motor starting
and load shedding schemes in this paper. However, it
should be noted the high complexity of the power
generation/distribution system required due to frequent
starting of several large motors utilizing a soft bus and
the issues of power stability.
In the design phase, a thorough evaluation of capital
cost constraints, the sparing of power and compression
units (n+1), and the impact on availability should take
place. Capital constraints sometimes drive a ‘no spare’
philosophy for the gas turbines (n+0). As we will point
out later, the difference in availability and reliability
differs greatly between configurations with spares and
without spares.
For Solution 1, the all turbine approach, smaller power
blocks of electric generation are required than in
Solution 2, the all electric approach. Therefore, when a
spare generator set is desired (n+1), the smaller blocks
of generator power to be purchased tend to be less
expensive, lighter in weight, require a smaller space
envelope which result in a lower installed cost.
Conversely, should a (n+1) configuration for the power
generation be selected for the EMD approach, the spare
gas turbine generation unit would be more expensive,
heavier in weight, require a larger space envelope likely
resulting in a higher installed cost.
The turbine mechanical drive solution often allows for
commonality between the power generation,
compression, and pump drivers. This results in
simplicity of operator training, operations, parts stocking,
maintenance and service support. EMDs do not reduce
the total amount of gas turbine power required, but do
add considerable additional scope of electrical
equipment (See Figure 2 and 3). When an all gas
turbine approach is selected, there are no requirements
for:
• Large, high voltage electric motors
Complicated power distribution system
o Multi-tiered voltage power
distribution
o Motorized, non-arcing switchgear
Variable frequency drives (VFDs)
o Water cooling system (coolers,
pumps, piping)
o Associated size & weight
requirements
o Isolation Transformer
o Harmonics Study/Harmonics Filter
3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 Gear between the driver and compressor Clearly, the entire system efficiency needs to be
Large and complicated motor control evaluated, not just individual components. To properly
centers/switchgear evaluate efficiencies, we first separate the efficiency of
(often multi-story, and up to12000 sq ft) the compression systems and the efficiency of the
Difficult motor starting and load shedding generation of electricity for other uses, such that the total
schemes, in particular for constant speed fuel requirement is Wf = Wfgen+Wfcompr. The thermal
arrangements. efficiency of the gas turbines involved is denoted as η
GT,mid for the mid sized gas turbines assumed in Solution
1 and η GT,large for the large gas turbines used for the
The comparison of the concepts will include initial capital generation of electric power in Solution 2.
cost, total power requirements, fuel usage, emissions,
maintenance, flexibility, and availability. W f ,comprη compr + W f , genη el
η system =
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Wf
Generators 3 Mid-Size Gas 3 Large Gas
Turbines Turbines and the power distribution between compression and
Electrical Power Medium Medium and High other electric load is
Distribution Voltage Voltage Systems
System with Transformers Pcompr W f ,comprη compr
Compressor 3 Mid-Size Gas 3 Electric Motors R= =
Drives Turbines Pgen W f , gen ⋅ η el
Speed Control Included 3 Variable
Frequency Drives This leads to an expression for the system efficiency
Motor Control Medium Medium and High
Center Voltage Voltage
⎛ 1⎞
⎜1 + ⎟η compr
= ⎝
R⎠
η system
1 η
Table 1: Installed Cost constituents
⎛ ⎞
⎜⎜1 + ⋅ compr ⎟⎟
⎝ R η el ⎠

SYSTEM EFFICIENCY , FUEL COST AND EMISSIONS

The overall system efficiency is defined as the amount of
fuel necessary to perform all the topside duties. This
‘system efficiency’, impacts several evaluation
components including fuel consumption, emissions
generated, and required driver size.
Fuel consumption, which directly affects fuel costs,
depends largely on the value of the fuel. If the gas is
used for re-injection, the fuel gas is of little value, and
system efficiency has little impact. On the other hand, if
the fuel gas can be pumped onshore, and sold, the fuel
value is near the market price for natural gas and overall
system efficiency becomes significant.
Higher efficiency of the components reduce the required
installed turbine power, and thus has an impact on first
cost and emissions. The amount of CO2 generated is
directly related to the installed power, while NOx, UHC
and CO emissions additionally depend on the type of
combustion system used. Usually, no commercial value
can be attached to the emissions produced, unless taxes
(like a CO2 tax) are levied on the amount of emissions
produced. In some instances however, operating permits
depend on the capability to stay below a certain
emission production rate.
If the compressors are driven by gas turbines,
generating a power of
Pcompr = LHV ⋅ W f ,compr ⋅ η gt ,mid
the efficiency for this portion is
η compr = η gt ,mid ⋅ η s ,compr
If the compressors are driven by electric motor drives,
the related efficiency becomes
η compr =
η gt ,l arg e ⋅ η genGB ⋅ η Gen ⋅ η distr ⋅ η transf
⋅ ηVFD ⋅ η EMot ⋅ η GB ⋅ η s ,compr
For constant speed motors (where ηVFD =1) other
evaluation criteria would require attention. For example,
the sizing of the generators would have to take into
account the requirement to cover significant power
spikes when motors are started. These spikes may also
increase the maintenance requirements of the generator
sets. Additionally, since operating conditions

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

encountered rarely match design conditions requiring the
true compressor efficiency to be adjusted to reflect
actual conditions. Constant speed motors, require the
compressor drivers to be oversized, and suction
throttling or recycling must be used to adjust the
compressor to the varying operating conditions.
Brentano [6] describes the effects of these control
mechanisms on power consumption. The necessary
additional driver power is at least 3% more than for
variable speed drives, following API 617 [7] guidelines,
because the compressor has to be designed for a larger
head making capability than required to allow for design
tolerances.
Gearbox losses could be avoided with an EMD if a high-
speed electric motor was selected. However, high-speed
motors are considered an emerging technology, with
rotor dynamic issues still a major concern ( Schmid [8]).
The cooling of high speed motors is also an issue,
because the higher the speed of the motor, the smaller
the motor for a given power becomes.
The gearbox between generator and gas turbine can be
avoided for certain large, slow running power turbines.
The efficiency of generating the electrical power for the
remaining systems is
η el = η gt , mid ,l arg e ⋅ (η GBgen ⋅ η gen ⋅ η distr ⋅ η transf ) mid ,l arg e
The losses due to transformers only apply if two voltage
levels have to be used.
Analysis reveals, that, in order to make up for the
additional losses, an all electric platform would require
the efficiency of the large power generation units to be
better than the efficiency of the medium sized gas
turbines by:
η GT ,mid
=
η GT ,l arg e
[(η genGB
⋅ η Gen ⋅ η distr ⋅ η transf ) GT ,l arg e ⋅ ηVFD ⋅ η EMot ⋅ η GB ×
⎛ η s ,compr
⎜1 + 1 ⋅
⎜ R (η
GBgen ⋅ η gen ⋅ η distr ⋅ η transf ) GT , mid
×⎝
⎜1 + (ηVFD ⋅ η EMot ⋅ η GB ⋅ η s ,compr )⎟
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎝ R ⎠ 1
For R << 1 (ie very little compression), the ratio
ηGT,mid/ηGT,large approaches 1(except for deviations from
the fact that ηdistr and ηtrans are different for Solution 1
and 2). For R>>1 (mostly compression), the ratio
becomes the result of the first bracket of the equation as
the 2nd bracket approaches 1. In Figure 4, the impact of
a variation of R on the efficiency ratio is shown1.
With turbine mechanical drive systems, the overall
efficiency losses are minimized. There are no gear,
VFD, or distribution losses. And, when losses are
minimized, efficiencies are maximized, resulting in lower
fuel costs and operating expenses.
Efficiency not only impacts fuel cost, but also is directly
proportional to the emission of CO2, a Greenhouse Gas
(GHG). The higher the efficiency, the lower the amount
of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to GHG,
limiting the emission of NOx remains an important
requirement. Sometimes, a certain upper limit,
expressed in NOx concentrations (ppm or mg/Nm3) is
specified. In other cases, the total amount of NOx
emissions per year is limited. If the latter is a
requirement, efficiency directly impacts the amount of
NOx (Klein and Kurz [9]).
]
⎞
⎟ Figure 4: Required Ratio Between Medium Size Gas Turbine
⎟
Efficiency in Scenario 1 and Large Size Gas Turbine Efficiency
⎠ in Scenario 2 to Break Even in System Efficiency, Depending
Using the following efficiencies :
Large GT: ηGenGB=0.98,ηGen=0.97ηdistr=0.99,ηtransf=0.99;
Medium GT:ηGenGB=0.98,ηGen=0.97ηdistr=0.995,ηtransf=1.0
Other: ηVFD=0.97,ηEmot=0.97, ηGB=0.98, ηs,compr=0.8,
5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
on the Ratio R Between the Power Used for Compression and
the Power Used for Other Duties.
The same logic as presented above also applies to the
total installed gas turbine power on the platform, which is
directly related to first cost considerations: For a given
required compression power Pcompr, and a given power
requirement for electrical power for other uses, Pgen, the
gas turbine solution (Solution 1)requires a total installed
driver power P1 of
P1 = Pcompr + Pgen
The solution using electric motor driven compression
requires an installed gas turbine power P2 of
P2 = Pgen + Pcompr /(η genGB ⋅ η Gen ⋅ η distr ⋅ η transf
⋅ ηVFD ⋅ η EMot ⋅ η GB )
which is always larger than for the gas turbine solution
above.
Since actual offshore production operating conditions
rarely coincide with project design conditions, and
operating conditions vary throughout the life of the
reservoir, the most efficient way for a compressor or
pump to accommodate off-design operating conditions is
through a variable speed driver. In Solution 1, a two
shaft gas turbine allows to vary the speed of the driven
equipment over a wide range. In Solution 2, EMDs,
variable speed can be achieved through hydraulic
couplings, or variable speed motors and VFDs.
INITIAL CAPITAL COST
A comparison of the total installed cost of the entire
power and compression systems must include the main
factors in Table 1.
Included in the considerations are the first cost of the
required equipment, the installation costs, the total
system weight and space requirements and its impact on
platform design and fabrication cost. For example, when
taking the entire electric system into consideration, the
footprint and weight is likely higher than a turbine
mechanical drive.
A typical, 10MW electric motor with the VFD system
weighs about 30,000kg for the Motor, and 30,000kg for
the VFD, while a 10MW gas turbine weighs about 8-
10,000kg. The weights mentioned are understood
without skid and ancillary systems. The space
requirements for a 10MW VFD are about 1.5m x15m,
with a height of 2.5m in addition to the motor-
compressor train. The footprint of a typical electric motor
driven skid is typically 12m by 3m, while a gas turbine
skid would have a very similar, footprint of 15m by 3m .
Another issue with regards to capital cost needs to be
emphasized: The total installed power for Solution 2 will
always be larger than Solution 1. Potential, but not
always realized, advantages on a cost/kW basis often
get eliminated by the fact that the installed gas turbine
power is not the same for Solutions 1 and 2, if the same
end result is to be achieved.
Because of the simplicity and minimum scope of
equipment, Solution 1 will normally have significantly
lower initial capital cost.
AVAILABILITY AND CONSEQUENCES
The availability A of the system considers both planned
and unplanned outages of equipment, and is defined as
t equipment _ needed − t out , planned − t out ,unplanned
A=
t equipment _ needed
and thus is distinguished from reliability data, that only
includes unplanned outages. Important contributors are
the frequency of failures, downtime from failures,
frequency of maintenance and downtime from
maintenance. Availability is impacted by the different
equipment selections.
The only published organized attempt to gather reliability
data for turbomachinery was made in OREDA [4], where
availability data from a large number of users are
gathered and organized. The data is organized in terms
of mean time between failures (MTBF), and the amount
of manhours necessary to restore the function (MTR).
The logistical delay (LD) is not captured, and has to be
estimated. The logistical delay is largely determined by
the manufacturers customer support organization, and
the question whether the failure occurs on off-the-shelf
or highly customized parts. Major uncertainties include
therefore the waiting time for spare parts and repair
personnel, as well as operational practices of the
operators.
Reliability is
( MTR + LD )
REL = 1 −
MTBF
It should be noted, however, that a large number of
applications are installed without standby units for the
compressors. This in itself indicates that availability of
units is just one of a number of considerations, but not
necessarily tantamount.
The OREDA [4] data seems to indicate that the reliability
6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
of a gas turbine driven compressor set is about 97.9%,
while the reliability of a gas turbine driven generator set
is 96.8%. The reliability of an electric motor driven
compressor (without control system and power supply) is
reported as 98.7%. Data about the reliability of motor
controls, electrical systems, or variable frequency drives
are not reported by OREDA [4]. However, they must be
included in any analysis. Anecdotal data show naturally
a large spread.
These reliability numbers for individual units can be
converted into reliability numbers for multiple unit
configurations. After assigning outage probabilities to
individual components, the outage probability of the
entire system can be calculated. If we have N
components, where a failure in any component will
cause the failure of the system, and the probability of
each component i to fail is pi, then the failure probability
psystem of the entire system is
p system = 1 − [(1 − p1 ) ⋅ (1 − p 2 ) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (1 − p N )]
A different situation arises if we have N components,
and the system will work (either at full capacity, or at a
specified, reduced capacity) even if some components
are down.
If the failure probability for each individual unit is pc, then
for a configuration with 4 units, for example, the
probability for no unit failing is p04, for exactly one unit
failing is p14, for exactly 2 units failing is p24 and so on:
p 04 = (1 − p c ) 4
p14 = 4 ⋅ (1 − p c ) 3 ⋅ p c
p 24 = 6 ⋅ (1 − p c ) 2 ⋅ p c2
p34 = 4 ⋅ (1 − p c ) ⋅ p c3
p 44 = p c4
On this basis, the probability q that at least 3 out of 4
units are operational is q = p04+p14, while the probability
that at least 2 out of 4 units are operational is q =
p04+p14+ p24.
A configuration using 3 units (each unit providing
33.333% of the necessary capacity) with 97% unit
reliability will achieve a reliability to maintain 100%
capacity of 91.3%, but it will retain a 66% capacity with
99.74% probability. Having a 3+1 unit configuration (i.e.
each unit can produce 33.333% of the necessary
capacity), the 100% capacity can be maintained with
99.48% probability.
In offshore operations, the key goal is usually to
maximize oil production, because the associated gas is
often not directly marketable. In some instances, the gas
can be delivered on-shore and fed into gas plants.
Otherwise, associated gas can be used for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR), i.e. it is either used for gas lift or gas re-
injection. In this case, the impact of turbo machinery
downtime on the financial results is therefore not so
much the loss of gas production, but the reduction of oil
production.
Figure 5: Typical Decline in Oil Production and Power
Demand in an Offshore Application (Miranda et al [2])
The lost oil production in turn is not a complete financial
loss, but rather a deferred revenue, because the turbo
machinery excess capacity (eg. due to excess power at
lower ambient temperature (Lotton et al [5]), or due to
the fact that the oil capacity declines over time (Figure 5)
will eventually recover the lost oil production.
The impact on production also depends on the type of
application: A gas re-injection operation, especially if
flaring the gas does not carry penalties, is not affected
tremendously by outages (assuming they don’t last for
days). A gas lift operation would lose a significant
amount of oil production, but not all of it, the instant the
compression units are shut down. If compressors that
pump gas to shore become non-operational, the impact
is a loss of revenue for the operation, that will vary with
the duration of the outage, as well as the line packing
status of the pipe. Since in many applications the
compression ratio is quite large, free-flowing the gas to
shore would only yield a negligible flow.
For the purpose of this study, we have assumed that any
lost production will be deferred to the time when the field
would normally have declined, as outlined in the
production profile in Figure 5. The true financial loss
therefore lies in the deferred revenue generation.
7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Any consideration of the impact of equipment
unavailability has to include the resulting revenue loss.
Production downtime in oil fields does not necessarily
become a direct revenue loss, but rather may be seen
as a deferred production: Downtime causes a delay in
the revenue stream, and the economic impact is
therefore a function of the interest (or discount) rate
adopted for the investment. During the declining phase
of the oil field, the production delayed due to equipment
unavailability can be recovered. Assuming a value of the
product v, the net present value (NPV) V1 of the
production lost due to downtime QLd during the N years
of production at maximum facility capacity.
N COMPARISON
V1 = ∑ NPV (v ⋅ QLD )
t =0
If this production can be recovered at a later time (i.e
starting at the year N+1) , the value of this production V2
becomes
M
V2 = ∑ NPV (v ⋅ Qrec )
t = N +1
The revenue loss V is then
V = V1 − V2
In a situation of rising product prices this can actually
lead to a revenue increase, if the deferred production
becomes valuable at a faster rate than the discount rate.
MAINTENANCE
Even routine, planned maintenance can pose a
disruptive situation for the platform operation.
Maintenance requirements for the electric motor by itself
are lower than the requirements for a gas turbine.
However, the entire system (power distribution, VFD’s)
add to the maintenance requirements for electric motors
and should be included in any evaluation. These
systems are usually custom designed, and therefore
may cause significant downtime due to parts availability.
It has been argued, that the maintenance for a larger
number of smaller gas turbines can be more disruptive
than for a smaller number of larger engines, because the
maintenance events occur more frequently.
On the other hand, larger units can require more man
power to perform a maintenance event (e.g. engine
removal for overhaul), and the more complex electrical
system adds to the maintenance requirements.
In reality, there is no distinct difference regarding the
‘disruptiveness’ between the different systems. There is,
however, a difference in the disruption due to routine
maintenance between engines that have to be
overhauled at site, and engines that can be removed
(ideally as a part of an engine exchange program, where
the entire exchange can be accomplished in 8 to 36
hours) and overhauled in a repair facility. Overhauling an
engine on the platform requires the presence of a
significant number of additional personnel on the
platform, and usually lasts several days or weeks.
The economic success of an installation is determined
by numerous influences. They include first cost, fuel
consumption, installed cost, maintenance cost and
availability. Often misunderstood, availability may have
significant weight on economic analysis’.
However, for a given set of engine sizes (and it must be
acknowledged that gas turbines sizes are not a
continuum, but discrete), using the equations derived in
the section on system efficiency, the solution using gas
turbine driven compressors will often provide more
actual compression power than a solution using electric
motor driven compressors, due to the multitude of
system losses.
For many sets of circumstances, we will therefore find
that even a lower availability of one solution can be
offset by the higher production rate (due to a higher
actual compression power) during normal operation of
another solution. In these simulations, excess power and
additional flow are not related linearly, because
additional flow always requires an increase in pressure
ratio (Figure 6), and may sometimes be limited by the
capacity of separators or other equipment. The validity of
this argument depends to some extent on contractual
delivery commitments, and the capability of the receivers
of the compressed gas to store excess, and balance
reduced amounts of gas.
However, based on the system response to loss of
power, the loss of a certain percentage of power does
not equate to an equal percentage of product flow
reduction; rather, the percentage in flow reduction will be
lower than the percentage in power reduction: A pipeline
system will react to a reduction in flow with a reduced
requirement for pressure ratio in the compressor. A gas
well will react to less driver power and subsequent flow
reduction with an increase in compressor suction
pressure (Figure 6), i.e. also with a reduction in pressure
ratio.
8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Figure 6: Typical Wellhead performance, showing the well
yield as a function of pressure. The lower the compressor can
draw the tubing pressure, the higher the flow
CONCLUSION
The result of these studies point out the decision which
scenario to use, an all-turbine approach versus an
electrified approach is a complex one; dependent on
numerous factors including life-cycle costs, emissions,
reliability, availability, flexibility and design simplicity.
The main drivers for life-cycle costs are first cost, fuel
cost and maintenance cost. Any comparison regarding
any economics - including first costs, maintenance
costs, fuel consumption (efficiency), availability, weight,
and space requirements between the different solutions,
have to be made on an overall system level.
Component comparisons will lead to incomplete results
and incorrect conclusions.
Availability is driven not only by the frequency of
machinery failure but more so by the time it requires to
repair the problem. There are large differences between
different manufacturers, and different service
arrangements. Published availability data, including time
to repair the problem is difficult to find.
Sparing of equipment can have drastic results in
improved equipment uptime. However, production
losses due to turbomachinery (generator set) downtime,
either for the electrified approach or all gas turbine
approach, are not a complete financial loss, but are
deferred to a later time. Additionally, the loss of a
certain percentage of power does not necessarily equate
to an equal percentage of production flow reduction.
The actual production impact due to turbomachinery
downtime is application dependent.
The electrified solution will always require larger overall
amounts of installed power than the gas turbine solution.
The all-electric solution requires a higher efficiency for
the generator sets to break even to the all-turbine
View publication stats
approach on system efficiency. This break-even point is
mandated by the power ratio between the compression
and electrical loads required.
Both the electrified approach and all gas turbine
approach can meet the paramount requirement of
flexibility for offshore platforms. However, the electrified
approach does add considerable additional scope of
electrical equipment resulting in a more complex
solution.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME/ANSI B133.16-2000, 2000, ‘Procurement
Standard for Gas Turbine Marine Applications’, 2000.
[2] Miranda, M.A., Brick, E.S., 2004,’Life Cycle Cost
Assessment of Turbomachinery for Offshore
Applications, Proc. 33rd Turbomachinery Symposium,
Houston, Tx
[3] Elliott, F.G., Kurz, R., Etheridge, C., O'Connell, J.P.,
2004,‘Fuel System Suitability Considerations for
Industrial Gas Turbines’, TransASME J Eng GT and
Power, Vol. 126 No.1
[4] OREDA,2002, ‘Offshore reliability data’, 4th Ed.,
Sintef, Norway.
[5] Lotton, J., Lubomirsky, M., 2004, ‘Gas Turbine Driver
Sizing and Related Considerations’, Proc. Conf. on
Operation of Gas Turbines and Turbocompressors,
Bratislava, Slovak Republic
[6] Brentano, T., 2003, Refresher Discussion on
Centrifugal Pumps, Proc. Gas Machinery Conference,
Salt Lake City, UT
[7] American Petroleum Institute, API Standard 617, 7th
Edition.
[8] Schmid,J., 1991,’Rotordynamic Aspects of a New
Hermetically Sealed Pipeline Compressor, Proc. 20th
Turbomachinery Symposium, Dallas,Tx
[9] Klein, M. , Kurz, R., 2003, ’An Output Based
Approach to Emissions Standards for Gas Turbine
Facilities’, ASME Paper GT2003-38785
9 Copyright © 2005 by ASME