Designing Compressor Stations at High Fuel Costs

Designing & Operating
Compressor Stations When

Fuel Costs are $5 to $10
William Couch
Mark Noall
El Paso Pipeline Group
Challenges of Compressor Station
Design – Session 1
• Price of Natural Gas
– Historical natural gas wellhead prices
– Where are wellhead gas prices headed?
• Natural Gas Consumption by Sector
• Domestic Natural Gas Production by Source
• Net Imports of Natural Gas by Source
• Federal Regulations
– Looking back - the history of regulations
– How do Federal regulations (or lack of) affect the design and operation of gas
compression facilities?
• Anatomy of a gas compression project
‘Squeeze Play in Engineering’
• Critical Look at Compressor Station Components
– Major gas piping
– Inlet gas filtration
– Gas compression
– Gas cooling
Operational Examples – Session 2
• Cost of Compression
• Pipeline Flow Losses
• Control Valves, Hidden Costs
• Part Load Operation
• Gas Turbines and Regenerators
• Combined Station Inefficiencies
Yearly U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price
(Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Yearly U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price
$12
$10
Extrapolated Trend Line

$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
0
5
5
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Lower 48 Wellhead Price for Natural Gas, 1990-2030
(2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet)
$10
$9
$8
$7
$6
Wellhead
$5
Henry Hub
$4
~$0.70
$3
$2
$1
$0
0
0
9
3
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Lower 48 Wellhead Price for Natural Gas,
1990-2030
• Lower 48 wellhead prices for natural gas are projected to
decline from current levels to ~$5/Mcf in 2013
• Price is expected to rise to ~$6/Mcf in 2030
• Henry Hub spot market prices are projected to decline to
~$5.70/Mcf in 2013
• Then rise to ~$6.70/Mcf in 2030
• Historically the price of LNG imported to North America
has been pegged to the Henry Hub spot price
• Some sources estimate that by the year 2010
approximately 6-8% of the total US gas supply will come
from LNG produced from foreign stranded gas reserves
Lower 48 Wellhead Natural Gas Price Uncertainty,
1990-2030
(2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet)
$9
$8
$7
$6
Reference
$5 High price
Low price
$4 Rapid technology
Slow technology
$3
$2
$1
$0
90
95
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Natural Gas Consumption by Sector, 1990-2030
(trillion cubic feet)
30
25
20
Transportation
Electric Power
15 Industrial
Commercial
Residential
10
0
0
0
9
3
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Domestic Natural Gas Production by Source, 1990-2030
25
20
15 Alaska
Lower 48 Deepwater Offshore
Lower 48 Shallow Water Offshore
Lower 48 Onshore Unconventional
10 Lower 48 Onshore Conventional
0
0
0
9
3
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Net Imports of Natural Gas by Source, 1990-2030
7
4
Net Inport
Mexico
3
Canada
LNG
0
90
95
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-1
Estimated Percentage of the Total US Gas
Supply Coming From LNG
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
-2%
So What Can We Gleam From This Data
Regarding Compressor Station Design
• Exports from Canada to the lower 48 are expected to
diminish
• LNG will steadily increase over the next 20+ years to
~4.5 tcf/yr
– Gas originating from LNG is proposed to have the following
properties:
• Maximum Wobbe index of 1,400
– Wobbe Index = HHV/(SG)½
• Maximum high heating value of ~1,100 Btu/scf
• Maximum C4+ (butane, pentane, hexane, +) of 1.5%
• Maximum inerts of 4%
• LNG cost will approximate the Henry Hub spot market
• Increased deliveries to electric generation facilities will
require highly reliable and flexible compression
Special Design Challenges -
continued
• Incremental production of lower 48 onshore natural gas
comes primarily from unconventional resources,
including coalbed methane, tight sandstones, and gas
shales
– Unconventional resources can be difficult to cleanup; especially
immediately downstream from producing wells
– Fine dry particulate along with production enhancing fluids make
these gas streams particularly challenging to filter
• The Alaska natural gas pipeline is expected to begin
transporting natural gas to the lower 48 States in 2018
• Alaska’s natural gas production totals ~2.2 tcf by 2030
Challenges
• Challenge 1: Going forward the price
and demand of natural gas will
probably remain high
• Challenge 2: LNG will become a player
The History of Regulation
• The Early Days of Regulation
• The Beginnings of Federal Regulatory Involvement
• The Natural Gas Act of 1938
• The Phillips Decision - Wellhead Price Regulation
• The Effects of Wellhead Price Control – 1958 to1978
• The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
• FERC Order No. 436
• The Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989
• FERC Order No. 636
The Early Days of Regulation
• The regulation of natural gas dates back to the very beginnings of the industry
• In the early days of the industry (mid-1800s) natural gas was predominantly
manufactured from coal, to be delivered locally, generally within the same
municipality in which it was produced
• Local governments deemed natural gas distribution a business that affected the
public interest to a sufficient extent to merit regulation
• Because of the distribution network it was decided that one company with a single
distribution network could deliver natural gas more cheaply than two companies
• Local governments regulated the rates these natural monopolies charged, and set
down regulations that prevented them from abusing their market power
• In the early 1900s, natural gas began to be shipped between municipalities
• Pipelines began carrying gas from city to city
• This new mobility of natural gas meant that local governments could no longer
oversee the entire natural gas distribution chain
• State level governments intervened to regulate the new 'intrastate' natural gas
market, and determine rates that could be charged by gas distributors
• This was done by creating public utility commissions and public service commissions
• The first states to do so were New York and Wisconsin, which instituted commissions
as early as 1907
The Beginnings of Federal
Regulatory Involvement
• With transportation of natural gas via interstate pipelines,
new regulatory hurdles arose
• In the same sense that municipal governments were
unable to regulate natural gas distribution that extended
beyond their areas of jurisdiction, the state governments
were unable to regulate interstate natural gas pipelines
• However, due to concern regarding the monopoly power
of interstate pipelines the federal government saw fit to
step in to fill the regulatory gap created by interstate
pipelines
• In 1935 Congress passed the Public Utility Holding
Company Act to limit the ability of holding companies to
gain undue influence over a public utility market
The Natural Gas Act of 1938
• In 1938, the federal government became involved directly in the
regulation of interstate natural gas with the passage of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA)
• The NGA gave the Federal Power Commission jurisdiction over
regulation of interstate natural gas sales
• The FPC was charged with regulating the rates that were charged
for interstate natural gas delivery
• The NGA specified that no new interstate pipeline could be built
to deliver natural gas into a market already served by another
pipeline
• In 1942, these certification powers were extended to cover any new
interstate pipelines. This meant that, in order to build an interstate
pipeline, companies must first receive the approval of the FPC.
• The NGA required that 'just and reasonable' rates for pipeline
services be enforced, it did not specify any particular regulation of
prices of natural gas at the wellhead
The Phillips Decision
(Wellhead Price Regulation)
• The Supreme Court ruled that natural gas producers that sold
natural gas into interstate pipelines fell under the classification of
'natural gas companies' in the NGA, and were subject to regulatory
oversight by the FPC
• This meant that wellhead prices would be regulated much the same
as natural gas that was sold by interstate pipelines to local
distribution utilities
• The Phillips decision had a complicated and far-reaching effect on
the natural gas industry
• The FPC instituted a traditional 'cost-of-service' rate making
determination rather than the market value of that service
• The U.S. was divided into five separate producing regions, and
the FPC set rates for all wells in a particular region
• The FPC set interim ceiling prices based on the average natural gas
contract prices paid during 1959-1960 for a particular area
The Phillips Decision - continued
(Wellhead Price Regulation)
• By 1970 rates had been set for only two of the five producing areas,
for most of the areas, prices were essentially frozen at 1959 levels
• The problem with determining rates for a particular area based on
cost-of-service methodologies was that there existed many wells in
each area, with vastly different production costs.
• By 1974 the FPC adopted national price ceilings for the sale of
natural gas into interstate pipelines
• Realizing that the prior price ceilings, based on the cost-of-service
approach, were much lower than the market value of interstate
natural gas, the FPC set a national price ceiling of $0.42
• Although this price ceiling doubled the prices that had been set
during the 60s, it was still significantly less than the market
value of the natural gas being sold
• This system of price controls was in place until the passage of the
Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) in 1978
Monthly U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
The NG Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
$3
1958 1978
Wellhead Price Control
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
The Effects of Wellhead Price Control –
1958 to 1978
• All three of these systems of price control discussed

above had disastrous effects on the natural gas market
• Because the set rates for natural gas were below the
market value of that gas, demand surged
• The low prices of natural gas meant that consumers
were receiving good value for their money
• This combined with the oil price surges experienced
during the OPEC crisis in the 70s made natural gas
an even more attractive fuel
• Producers saw little reason to engage in the
exploration of new reserves that would cost more to
find than they could be sold for under FPC wellhead
price control
The Effects of Wellhead Price Control –
1958 to 1978 - continued
• So while demand was surging nationwide, economic
incentives did not exist for producers to ship their gas
across state lines
• By 1975, almost half of the proved reserves were
committed to intrastate consumers
• This resulted in natural gas reaching consumers in the
producing states, while the consuming states were
experiencing natural gas supply shortages
• In 1976 and 1977, many schools and factories in the
Midwest were forced to close, due to a shortage of
natural gas to run their facilities; in the producing states,
virtually no shortage was felt
• Realizing that something must be done at the federal
level to reduce the strain of these supply shortages and
demand surges, Congress enacted the Natural Gas
Policy Act in 1978
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
$3
1958 1978
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
• In November of 1978, at the peak of the
natural gas supply shortages, Congress
enacted legislation known as the Natural
Gas Policy Act (NGPA), this act had three
main goals:
– Creating a single national natural gas
market
– Equalizing supply with demand
– Allowing market forces to establish the
wellhead price of natural gas
The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 -
continued
• The NGPA was a fundamental first step in
deconstructing the regulatory problems that had been
created by the NGA. The market response to the
provisions of the NGPA included:
– Pipelines, accustomed to gas shortages in the past years,
signed up for many long-term natural gas contracts
– Producers expanded exploration and production, drilling new
wells and using the long-term sales contracts with pipelines to
recover their investment
– Average wellhead prices rose dramatically in the years
following the NGPA
– Prices for end-users increased, but were mitigated by the
pipelines, which blended the cost of gas under new contracts
with regulated gas under old contracts when selling their bundled
product to their customers
– Price increases led to decreased demand
The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 -
continued
• The pipelines, used to the era of curtailment, were quick to sign up for long-
term 'take-or-pay' contracts
• The increasing wellhead price, mixed with the eagerness of pipelines to
deliver as much natural gas as possible, led to a situation of oversupply
• Where it was necessary to curtail natural gas deliveries in the 60s and 70s
due to high demand and low supply, the situation reversed in the period
from 1980-85
• Rising natural gas prices resulted in the dropping off of some of the demand
that had built up when the price for natural gas was held below its market
value
• The resulting 'oversupply' scenario had a number of effects, including
requiring the pipelines to make 'take-or-pay' payments to their suppliers
despite no longer needing the amount of natural gas that had previously
been contracted
• Pipeline customers sought the right to purchase their own gas from
producers and transport it over the interstate pipelines, instead of
purchasing the bundled product directly from the pipelines
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
$3
1958 1978
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
FERC Order No. 436
• FERC Order No. 436 had a number of immediate
effects, including:
– Pipelines began offering transportation service to all
customers
– Pipeline customers realized cost savings, in that the
spot market prices of natural gas were much lower
than the prices offered for natural gas by the pipelines
(due to the long term 'take-or-pay' contracts that the
pipelines were bound under)
– The payments necessary under these 'take-or-pay'
contracts increased for pipelines, as few customers
were willing to purchase higher priced gas from the
pipelines
– Pipelines and producers were often forced into
litigation to resolve issues surrounding 'take-or-pay'
contracts
FERC Order No. 436 - continued
• FERC Order No. 436 also had a number of
longer term effects, including:
– The transportation function became the primary
function of pipelines, as opposed to offering the
bundled merchant service
– A wide variety of natural gas purchasing and
transportation patterns and practices emerged due to
the availability of choices to the end user
– New pricing patterns emerged, known as 'netback'
pricing, in which a reasonable price was set at the
point of consumption, and that minus the cost of
distribution, minus the cost of transportation, gave the
'netback' price to the producer at the wellhead
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
$3
1958 1978
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
The Natural Gas Wellhead
Decontrol Act of 1989
• The NGWDA stated that 'first sales' of natural gas were
to be free of any federal price regulations. The Act
defined 'first sales' as the sale of gas:
– To a pipeline
– To a local distribution company
– To an end user
– Preceding the sale to any of the above
– Determined by FERC to be a first sale
• Excluded from falling under the definition of a first sale
were any sales of gas by pipelines and local distribution
companies, including interstate pipelines
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
$3
1958 1978
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
FERC Order No. 636
• While FERC Order No. 436 made the unbundling of pipeline
services possible, the establishment of transportation only services
by a pipeline continued to be only voluntary
• FERC Order No. 636 completed the final steps towards unbundling
by making pipeline unbundling a requirement
• Issued in 1992, the Order states that pipelines must separate their
transportation and sales services, so that all pipeline customers
have a choice in selecting their gas sales, transportation, and
storage services from any provider, in any quantity
• Order 636 is often referred to as the Final Restructuring Rule, as it
was seen as the culmination of all of the unbundling and
deregulation that had taken place in the past 20 years
• Pipelines could no longer engage in merchant gas sales, or sell any
product as a bundled service
• The production and marketing arms of interstate pipeline companies
were required to be restructured as arms-length affiliates
• Order 636 also requires that interstate pipelines offer services that
allow for the efficient and reliable delivery of natural gas to end
users
FERC Order No. 636 - continued
• These services include the institution of 'no-notice'
transportation service, access to storage facilities,
increased flexibility in receipt and delivery points, and
'capacity release' programs
– No-notice transportation services allow LDCs and utilities to
receive natural gas from pipelines on demand to meet peak
service needs for its customers, without incurring any penalties
– The capacity release programs allow the resale of unwanted
pipeline capacity between pipeline customers
– Order 636 requires interstate pipelines to set up electronic
bulletin boards, accessible by all customers on an equal basis,
which show the available and released capacity on any particular
pipeline
– A customer requiring pipeline transportation can refer to these
bulletin boards, and find out if there is any available capacity on
the pipeline, or if there is any released capacity available for
purchase or lease from one who has already purchased capacity
but does not need it
$8
1992 2007
FERC Order No. 636
$7
$6 89 92
19 19
$5
1985 1989
FERC Order No. 436
$4
1978 1985
$3
1958 1978
$2
$1
$0
0
0
2
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Ja
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
n -75
De
c-7
6
De
c-7
8
De
c-8
0
De
c-8
2
De
c-8
4
De
c-8
6
De
c-8
8
De
c-9
0
De
c-9
2
De
c-9
4
De
c-9
6
De
c-9
8
De
c-0
0
De
c-0
2
De
c-0
4
De
c-0
6
Agile Gas Compression is Mandatory for
Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline
Key Regulation Impact on Gas Compression
• Pipeline customers have a choice in • Volumes of gas compressed can
selecting their gas sales, change 4 or more times per day
transportation, and storage services • Based loaded compression will
from any provider, in any quantity continue to be the exception rather
• ‘No-notice' transportation service, than the norm
access to storage facilities, increased • Gas compression facilities need be
flexibility in receipt and delivery points, extremely flexible; regularly varying
and 'capacity release' programs volumes, pressures and is some cases
• Resale of unwanted pipeline capacity bidirectional flows
between pipeline customers • Expanded operating flexibility is
• Electronic bulletin boards show the required to meet the demands of
available and released capacity on any customers
particular pipeline • Efficient operation over a wide range
• Released capacity available for of flows and pressures insures
purchase or lease from one who has competitive transportation costs
already purchased capacity but does • Gas compression should be designed
not need it with an eye on the expansion
Challenges
• Challenge 1: Going forward the price and
demand of natural gas will probably
remain high
• Challenge 3: Deregulation of the natural
gas industry requires compression
facilities to very flexible and agile
Project Development Stages and
Timelines
• Identify Need
• Determine Facilities to Satisfy Need
– Includes definition of requirements and evaluation of
alternatives
– Timing: 1 month to 24 months
• Have Open Season to Determine Additional
Market Interest
– Assumes an economic alternative has been identified
to satisfy the need or identified need and anticipated
additional market interest
– Timing: 1 month
Project Development Stages and
Timelines - continued
• Finalize Facilities to Satisfy Requirements
Identified during Open Season
– Timing: 1-6 months
• Prepare and Execute Contracts to Support
Project
– This starts the project stopwatch
• Detailed Engineering, Procurement and
Construction of Project
– Includes required FERC filing and associated reports,
right-of-way procurement, environmental permitting
and facility commissioning
‘Squeeze Play in Engineering’
• These legitimate outside forces, Management and Board approvals,
regulations and permits substantially reduce design and
construction timelines for engineering projects
• We need this facility online in 15 months for 17
million dollars; can you do it?
“Yes but we may need to expedite some of the key elements of the
project”
• We being engineers, and not being independently wealthy, take on
the challenge
• These semi-unrealistic timelines can limit ‘attention to detail’ of
some critical elements of the compression facility
• Rigorous specification preparation and evaluation may give way to
the time honored selection method:
“We sent the RFP out to four suppliers, three responded; we made
the selection based upon (first) cost”
Challenges
• Challenge 1: Going forward the price and
demand of natural gas will probably remain high
• Challenge 3: Deregulation of the natural gas
industry requires compression facilities to very
flexible and agile
• Challenge 4: Outside forces can substantially
limit the design and construction phase of
most gas compression projects
Enough History and Doom and Gloom
Let’s see how to better meet these challenges!
• The effects of these ‘squeeze plays’ can be lessened
– Upfront detailed equipment specification
– Meaningful relationship with the ‘right’ vendors and suppliers
– Qualification of suppliers who have ‘the right stuff’ when it comes
to supplying quality products in a timely manner
– Technical alliances with manufacturer and suppliers to establish
minimum acceptable construction and manufacturing standards
• These are not the traditional (dollar driven) vendor alliances that
many companies established with suppliers in the ’80s and ’90s
• These are technical alliances to streamline product selection and
procurement activities
– Detailed engineering studies, planning and software that will
make the design and construction process easier, allowing more
time for critical design decisions and equipment selection
• Let’s see how
Let’s survey the compressor station
from suction to discharge
• Major gas piping

• Inlet gas filtration
• Gas compression
• Gas cooling
Major Gas Piping Evaluation
• Gas piping hydraulic model utilizing the
Colebrook-White equation
• Gas properties model using the BWR equations
of state
• Using the above two models I constructed a
Virtual Compressor Station (VCS) over a
weekend; think of the product that several young
bright engineers could put together over several
months with input from others departments
within your company and key suppliers
VCS Fixed Operating Parameters
• Flow (MMscf/d) 500
• Specific Gravity 0.599
• LHV (Btu/scf) 943
• Station Suction Pressure (psig) 800
• Station Discharge Pressure (psig) 1,000
• Station Suction Temperature (F) 70
• Station Discharge Temperature (F) 120
• Ambient Air Temperature (F) 100
• Station Elevation (ft) 0
VCS – Station Piping
(Suction / Discharge)
• Pipe Length (ft) 300 / 300

• Branch Tee (each) 2/4
• Run Tee (each) 2/2
• 90 LR Elbows (each) 4/4
• 45 Elbows (each) 6/4
• Swing Check (each) 0/1
• Ball Valve (each) 2/2
VCS Gas Compressor & Driver
• Heat Rate (Btu/BHP-hr) 7,500

• Fuel Cost ($/Mcf) 8
• Utilization Factor (%) 70
• Compressor Efficiency (%) 80
VCS – ‘Rules of Thumb’ Used as a
Starting Point for the Design
• Major Gas Piping Velocity (fps) 30 to 50

• Suction Piping Pressure Drop (psi) ≤5
• Discharge Piping Pressure Drop (psi) ≤5
• Inlet Filtration Pressure Drop (psi) ≤5
• Gas Cooling Pressure Drop (psi) ≤5
VCS Results Using 20” Nominal
Pipe Diameter
Using the VCS I made several runs and
selected 20” pipe as my base case for
my evaluation moving forward
• Suction Gas Velocity (fps) 59

• Discharge Gas Velocity (fps) 50
• Suction Piping Pressure Drop (psi) 4
• Discharge Piping Pressure Drop (psi) 4.9
• Inlet Filtration Pressure Drop (psi) 5
• Gas Cooling Pressure Drop (psi) 5
VCS Results Using 20” Nominal
Pipe Diameter
Next the 20” pipe results were used to
calculate the following:
• Compressor Suction Pressure (psig) 791.0

• Compressor Discharge Pressure (psig) 1,009.9
• Driver Power (BHP) 6,223
• Fuel Cost / Year ($K) $2,427
Pipe Size Comparison
140 $3,000
120 $2,900
100 $2,800
Fuel Cost / Year ($K)

80 $2,700 Discharge Temperature (F)
Suction Gas Velocity (fps)
Discharge Gas Velocity (fps)
60 $2,600 Suction Pressure Loss (psi)
Discharge Pressure Loss (psi)
40 $2,500
20 $2,400
0 $2,300
24 22 20 18 16 14
Nominal Pipe Size (in)
Choosing Pipe Diameter –
A More Rigorous (Better?) Method
$2,900
$2,800
Installed Cost of Pipe, Valves and Fittings
$2,700
$2,600 Fuel Cost / Year ($K)
$2,500
$2,400
$2,300
14 16 18 20 22 24
Installed Cost of Pipe, Valves & Fittings
(PV&F) Has Many Components
• Cost of pipe, valves and fittings

– Bigger means thicker wall or higher grade of material
• Transportation costs (ship, rail & truck)
• Installation costs (trenching, material handling, welding,
pipe coating, foundations, cathodic protection, painting,
etc.)
• This will only allow us to compare the fuel cost for the 1st
year versus the installed cost of the PV&F
• What we need is a present value comparison over the
projected life of the project
• We need more information…
Choosing Pipe Diameter –
A More Rigorous (Better?) Method
Better generally mean time consuming and costly
• Present value of money

• *Estimated life of the station: 5, 10, 20, 30 or more years
• *Estimated fuel costs over the service life of the station
• *Estimated utilization factor of the facility
• *Projected gas volumes and pressures
• Etc.
*May require the use of a crystal ball, weegee board, palm

or tea leaf reader
PV of Fuel Cost and Installed Cost of PV&F
Installed Cost of Pipe, Valves and Fittings

No Scale
Present Value of Fuel Cost ($)
14 16 18 20 22 24
VCS Sensitivity Studies
• Once you have chosen your piping details and
layout you can use the VCS to perform
sensitivity (what if?) studies
– Suppose the coal seam gas that was scheduled to
produce a flow of 500MM for 3 years and then fall off
expands to 700MM with enhanced drilling
– The temporary compression that was to be used for 5
years becomes a permanent installation; you may
have chosen a small diameter pipe to reduce
installation costs and keep your transportation cost
competitive
General Comments
• Once chosen you are pretty much stuck with your major
gas piping
• The total replacement costs of major plant piping is very
high
• The excessive fuel costs generally will not justify the
expense and downtime required to remedy excessive
pressure losses; this is a cost that your company will
probably endure for the life of the project
• Therefore it is paramount that good choices are made
with proper due diligence
• Another big question is the configuration of multiple
units, series or parallel
• Let’s look at an example using the VCS
VCS Fixed Operating Parameters
• Flow (MMscf/d) ≥ 500
• Specific Gravity 0.599
• LHV (Btu/scf) 943
• Station Suction Pressure (psig) 800
• Station Discharge Pressure (psig) 1,000
• Station Suction Temperature (F) 70
• Station Discharge Temperature (F) 120
• Ambient Air Temperature (F) 100
• Station Elevation (ft) 0
• Heat Rate (Btu/BHP-hr) 7,500
• Fuel Cost ($/Mcf) 8
• Utilization Factor (%) 70
• Compressor Efficiency (%) 80
VCS - Increased Throughput Equates to Increased Fuel Costs
125 $5,000
105 $4,500
85 $4,000
Suction Pressure Loss (psi)

65 $3,500
Discharge Temperature (F)
Fuel Cost / Year ($K)
45 $3,000
25 $2,500
5 $2,000
500 600 700 800
Flow (MMscf/d)
VCS - Increased Throughput Equates to Increased Fuel Costs
30 $5.80
25 $5.60
20 $5.40
Suction Pressure Loss (psi)
Fuel Cost / MM ($/MMscf/d)
15 $5.20
10 $5.00
5 $4.80
500 600 700 800
Flow (MMscf/d)
Compressor Station From Suction
to Discharge

• Gas compression
• Gas cooling
Engineering 101
• I have seen some confusion with the following
units; especially when specifying gas and oil
filtration equipment:
– micron (µ) - a metric unit of distance equal to one
millionth of a meter
• 1 micron is ~39.37 µin
– mil - a unit of distance equal to 0.001 inch
• 1 mil is exactly 25.4 microns
– Micro-inch (µin) - a traditional unit of distance equal to
10-6 inch, 0.001 mil
• 1 µin is exactly 0.0254 microns
• Many folks confuse these units
Inlet Gas Filtration
• A little bit of knowledge goes a long way in properly
specifying inlet filtration equipment
– Knowledge of the pipeline gas impurities (not just flow, pressure,
temperature & gas analysis) is paramount to properly specify
inlet filtration equipment
– This service is available from several companies for a moderate
charge
– The cost of this service is small in comparison to frequent filter
media change outs, allowing containments downstream or worse
yet replacing or ‘piggy backing’ the misapplied vessel
• This problem is exacerbated near production facilities
and producing fields
• Additional unknown costs are associated with damaged
compressor components and dirty gas measurement
equipment, and reduced pipeline efficiencies
• Quality and specificity not quantity is the name of the
game for specifying inlet filtration equipment
Why Use Inlet Gas Filtration
Pros Cons
• Reduces maintenance • Initial scoping costs of
costs of gas compressor gas stream
• Increases the accuracy of • Pressure drop
gas measurement • Initial CapEx expenditure
equipment for gas filtration
• Avoid catastrophic equipment
damage to compressors • Continuing OpEx
(bolts, nuts, weld rod, expenditure for media
boards, lunch boxes, etc.) R&R
• Increase pipeline • Disposal costs for filter
efficiency… keeping the media (if installed)
crud out of the pipeline • Disposal costs for liquids
(if present)
• O&M costs of the vessel
Inlet Filtration / Separation
Specification
Purchasing
Environmental
Terms & Conditions
Specifications
5 pages
10 Pages
Mechanical Paint
Specifications Specifications
30 Pages 5 pages
Process
Specifications
1 Page
Specification
Purchasing Environmental
Terms & Conditions Specifications
5 pages 10 Pages
Poorly designed and

specified equipment
the for application
Mechanical Paint
Specifications Specifications
30 Pages 5 pages
Process
Specifications
1 Page
The most misapplied, ill specified and misunderstood piece

of equipment in the compressor station… just my opinion
Knowledge is paramount . . .
A little bit of knowledge goes a long way in properly
specifying inlet filtration equipment
Barriers to knowledge . . .
“ . . . we have always done it that way. . . . the project
schedule does not allow. . . . we do not have the
resources to expend. . . . It is just a &%#@ filter”
Knowledge is available . . . from where?

Knowledge is available
Internal
• Liquid Samples from system or similar system analyzed for

identification, surface tension, pH, density, total suspended solids
loading and solid particle size identification
• Maintain direct communication with Operations to identify existing
process problems that can be designed into future expansions
• Anticipate future operational requirements such as pigging demand,
chemical injection requirements or production enhancing chemicals
• Discuss internally with environmental personnel, work may already
be done
• Company lab analysis
External
• Onsite contaminant monitoring & analysis

• Offsite lab analysis
• E & C with experience in a specific process stream
What do we do with our new gained Knowledge . . .
• Share information with quality vendors

– Expand upon the typical flow, pressure, temp & gravity process info
– Provide piping layout including upstream and downstream
considerations
– Work with quality vendors to determine best fit for service
• Hold vendors accountable

– Have vendors identify efficiencies for your contaminant stream
– Performance test equipment, especially in critical applications
– Always work with operations to identify failures in design considerations
• Continuous inspection & observation

– Examine general condition (internally) of filtration / separation
equipment.
– Establish routine maintenance intervals to at a minimum inspect general
condition of element & proper sealing.
– Find the source of a problem, do not concentrate on the symptoms.
Knowledge . . . can it make a difference
• If you are able to prevent:
– A 36” pipeline that that has a reduction in pipeline
efficiency from 98% to 70%
Can we afford not to have knowledge?
• If you are able to
prevent:
– A large diameter, high
pressure vertical
coalescer originally
designed to handle
high liquid loads pulled
out of service, because
large solid contaminant
load was not specified
and eventually plugged
all liquid drainage
capability and harming
downstream equipment
Can we afford not to have

knowledge?
• If you are able to

prevent:
• A section of filter
element that shows
clear signs of
chemical
incompatibility that
was found in a gas
stream
• In this case the
element would not
build differential
pressure due to the
bypass allowed
• Downstream
equipment and pipe
was left unprotected
Slug Catchers and Knock Out Vessels
• Slug catchers and knock out vessels are used to
catch large quantities of liquids
• Generally used downstream of pigging
operations and producing fields where large
quantities of liquid are anticipated. Typically
sized to remove a specific volume of liquid slug
• Temporary vessels can be installed to catch
hydro liquid and during extreme upsets
conditions like hurricanes
Separators & Scrubbers
• Separator - a single stage housing that utilizes a
mist eliminator (vane, wire mesh or centrifugal) to
remove entrained liquid mist from flowing gas
• Scrubber - two stage device with second stage

designed to remove liquid mist from flowing gas as
described above. First stage is designed for large
liquid storage or slug capacity
• Efficiencies as good as 90 - 98% of 3 - 10 micron &

larger liquids / entrained solids (depending design
of mechanical mist eliminator’s)
• Scrubbers make poor slug catchers (unless sized to

do so) and especially poor coalesers
Common Inlet Gas Filtration Filter/Separators
• Technology Introduced in • Filter Separator Technology still widely utilized
1955 • Efficiencies as good as 99.98% - 1 micron &
• First stage outside to inside larger solids and liquids
• Second stage mist extractor • Not recommended for low surface tension
– serpentine vane liquids, fouling, sticky or critical service
– wire mesh
– centrifugal
Coalescers & Filter Coalescers
• Technology introduced in early 1980’s

• 99.98% 0.3 micron solids & larger
• 99.50% 0.3 micron liquids & larger
• First stage heavy liquids fall out
• Second stage inside out
• Reverse Flow Coalescer Technology still
widely utilized
• Not recommended for solids
• Not recommended for liquids loading greater
than fogs or aerosol mist
• Excellent on low surface tension liquids and
critical service
• Not recommended for fouling or sticky
service
Product Evaluation
• The manufacturers specification sheet and design details should closely be
evaluated for the following factors:
– Pressure drop (fuel costs) versus initial cost should be rigorously evaluated
– The replacement cost of the filter media should be factored into the total cost of
the installation
– The retention capacity of the media should be factored into the total cost of the
installation
• Inexpensive filter media requiring frequent change outs may not be the most cost
effective choice
– Poor access to the filter media may greatly increase the replacement labor costs
• A small, inconveniently located or small enclosure door can greatly increase the labor
costs during routine maintenance… bigger is better (see following slide)
• Smaller enclosures usually require confined space entry
• Smaller enclosures or non-full diameter closures should not be used in sour gas
applications
– Poorly designed filter element attachment fixtures may result in filter elements
that are not properly seated (see following slide)
– The filtration equipment’s performance rating should match the protection
requirements for the downstream equipment to be protected
Inlet Gas Filtration / Reduced Access
Confined entry (top)

Open entry (right)
Inlet Gas Filtration / Attachment Fixtures
‘Cheesy’ filter
retention
hardware lead to
poor sealing of
filter elements
Fuel Cost for High ∆P Inlet Filtration
$300,000 $2,650
$250,000 $2,600
Additional Fuel Cost / Year ($)
Operating Cost / Year ($K)

$200,000 $2,550
Operating Cost / Year ($K)

$150,000 $2,500
Additional Fuel Cost / Year ($)
$100,000 $2,450
$50,000 $2,400
$0 $2,350
2 5 10 12 15 20
Pressure Differential (psi)
The Decision to R&R Filter Elements
$25,000
$23,000
$22,334
$20,000
Monthly Fuel Costs Delta ($)
$16,057
$15,000
$12,318
$9,837
$10,000 $9,000
$5,000 $3,672
$0
$0
2 5 10 12 15 20 R&R R&R
Filter Coalescer
Inlet Filtration Pressure Drop (psi)
Separator Filter
Actual Inlet Filtration
Differential Pressure
SUCTION SCRUBBER DIFF PRESSURE (CORMIDWWS91A:PRI_INLET_SCRUB_DP) Cyclic
(9/9/2004 9:52:57 AM) 7.40 psid
(12/17/2005 2:46:54 AM) 5.65 psid -1.75 psid (463 days, 16:53:57)
10.00
Filter ∆P 7.4 psi

8.00
Filter ∆P 5.65 psi
6.00
4.00
Filter Element
2.00 R&R
0.00
8/1/2004 6/11/2005 4/22/2006
12:00:00 AM 11:40:14 PM 11:20:28 PM
Inlet Filtration Challenges
Misapplied inlet filtration generally results in one or more of
the following:
• Poor filtration efficiency
– Contaminants enter compressor and pipeline
– Increased compressor maintenance costs
– Reduced pipeline efficiencies
– Increased pipeline pigging
• High frequency of filter element replacement
– High O&M costs
– Station unavailable or unprotected equipment and pipe
• High inlet differential pressure
– Increased fuel costs / transportation costs
In Conclusion
• What is worse than a 20 psi differential pressure across
an inlet filter?
• 0 psi differential pressure across an inlet filter!
– Filter elements have collapsed or have been compromised
allowing unfiltered gas, contaminants and debris to enter the
compressor and pipeline
– Improperly installed filter media, clamping devices or seals
• Removing and installing filters elements is a Mike Rowe
kind of job, many times performed by contract personnel
– Insure personnel are knowledgeable and trained
– Insure the filter clamping devices are working properly
– Inspect all work performed on the vessel and verify proper
operation upon startup
• A comprehensive gas stream analysis should be as
automatic as a geotechnical soil survey for greenfield
installations with unknown gas streams
to Discharge

• Gas compression
• Gas cooling
High Speed Separable Recip Units
Pros Cons
• High power density • Performance issues
(BMEP) • Vibration issues
• Choice of driver and • Pulsation issues
compressor • Single point of
• Usually skid mounted responsibility
• Lower transportation challenges
costs • Driver installation and
• Portability service issues
• Ease of installation • Coupling durability
Anatomy of a Recip Package Compressor
What is our sphere of influence?
Tangible Costs Intangible Costs
• Prime Mover • Design Costs
• Compressor – Torsional & Lateral Studies
• Coupling – Pulsation Studies
• Inlet and Discharge Bottles – Finite Element Studies
• Pipe, Valves & Fittings • Manufacturing Costs
• Skid & Structural Members • Overhead
• Controls & Instrumentation • Wages & Salaries
• Ancillary Equipment • Warranty
– Inlet Filtration • Marketing & Sales
– Exhaust Treatment • Advertising
– Pumps • Field & Startup Support
– Coolers • Profit
– Etc.
Anatomy of a Recip Package Compressor
Tangible Costs
Intangible Costs
Tangible Cost Breakdown
Intangible Costs
Prime Mover
Compressor
Coupling
Inlet and Discharge

Bottles
Pipe, Valves &
Fittings
Skid & Structural
Members
Controls &
Instrumentation
Ancillary Equipment
Anatomy of a Package Recip Compressor
Tangible Costs
Intangible Costs
Intangible Cost Breakdown
Tangible Costs
Design Costs
Manufacturing Costs
Overhead
Wages & Salaries
Warranty
Marketing & Sales
Advertising
Field & Startup

Support
Profit
Which of these items are under our control?
Tangible Costs Intangible Costs

• Prime Mover • Design Costs
• Compressor – Torsional & Lateral Studies
• Coupling – Pulsation Studies
• Inlet and Discharge Bottles – Finite Element Studies
• Pipe, Valves & Fittings • Manufacturing Costs
• Skid & Structural Members • Overhead
• Controls & Instrumentation • Wages & Salaries
• Ancillary Equipment • Warranty
– Inlet Filtration • Marketing & Sales
– Exhaust Treatment • Advertising
– Pumps • Field & Startup Support
– Coolers • Profit
– Etc.
Tangible Costs
Which items should we be more proactive in specifying?
• Prime Mover
• Compressor
• Coupling
• Inlet and Discharge Bottles
• Pipe, Valves & Fittings
• Skid & Structural Members
• Controls & Instrumentation
• Ancillary Equipment
– Inlet Filtration
– Exhaust Treatment
– Pumps
– Coolers
– Etc.
Intangible Costs
Which items should we be more proactive in specifying?
• Design Costs
– Torsional & Lateral Studies
– Pulsation Studies
– Finite Element Studies
• Manufacturing Costs
• Overhead
• Wages & Salaries
• Warranty
• Marketing & Sales
• Advertising
• Field & Startup Support
• Profit
Actual LS Vs. HS Recip Performance
2,000
Slow Speed
FL/FL Poly. (Slow Speed System)
Poly. (Slow Speed cyl)
Slow Speed
1,500 Lat/Lat Poly. (high speed system)
Poly. (high speed cylinder)
Design Point
Flow Poly. (guaranteed)
Flow (MMscfd)
(MMSCFD) Poly. (system difference)

High Speed
Poly. (cyl difference)
FL/FL
1,000
High Speed
Lat/Lat
500 Q Delta FL/FL
Q Delta Lat/Lat
Presented by Harris &
Raymer, 2006 GMC
0
1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60
Compression Ratio
to Discharge

• Gas compression
• Gas cooling
Air Cooler Exchanger Comparison
Cooler A (Top) Cooler B (Bottom)

• Four bays • Four bays
• Fin tube surface 497,800 ft2 • Fin tube surface 393,800 ft2
• Bare tube surface 25,420 ft2 • Bare tube surface 20,070 ft2
• Duty 46,000,000 Btu/hr • Duty 46,000,000 Btu/hr
• MTD (efficiency) 23.0 °F • MTD (efficiency) 24.5 °F
• Fin tube transfer 4.02 Btu/(hr • Fin tube transfer 4.78 Btu/(hr ft2
ft2°F) °F)
• Bare tube transfer 78.68 Btu/(hr • Bare tube transfer 93.55 Btu/(hr
ft2 °F) ft2 °F)
Duty, Bare, Finned & MTD
• Finned transfer rate is simply the bare
transfer rate times the ratio of bare to
finned surface areas
– This ratio will vary depending on tube
diameter, fin tube diameter and fin spacing
(pitch)
– ‘Rule of Thumb:’ Any air cooled gas cooling
exchanger showing a finned transfer rate over
4.5 should be considered questionable
Performance Data – Tube Side
Cooler A Cooler B
• Inlet temperature 167.0 • Inlet temperature 167.0
°F °F
• Discharge temperature • Discharge temperature
120.0 °F 120.0 °F
• Mass flow 1,579,000 lb/hr • Mass flow 1,579,000 lb/hr
• Viscosity 0.013 Cp • Viscosity 0.013 Cp
Gas Analysis and Properties
• It is important to provide the bidders:
1. A detailed gas analysis including water or non-
condensables that might be present, or
2. A complete set of thermal properties for the gas
stream
– All natural gas is not the same
– All natural gas with the same molecular weight is not the
same
– If you provided the gas analysis check the molecular
weight on the data sheet
3. Check other thermal properties to see if they are in
the expected range
– For the example given it is doubtful that the viscosity in is
the same as the viscosity out
Performance Data – Tube Side
Cooler A Cooler B
• Pressure Drop • Pressure Drop
3.00/2.92 psi 5.00/5.30 psi
• The calculated
pressure drop
exceeds the allowable
Performance Data – Air Side

• Air Quantity 1,257,000 • Air Quantity 1,324,000
SCFM SCFM
• Air Quantity 5,657,000 lb/hr • Air Quantity 5,958,000 lb/hr
• Air Quantity/Fan 197,500 • Air Quantity/Fan 208,000
ACFM ACFM
• Altitude 5,145 ft • Altitude 5,145 ft
• Temperature in 100 °F • Temperature in 100 °F
• Temperature out 133.7 °F • Temperature out 132.0 °F
• Altitude: insure the altitude that appears

on the specification sheet is correct
• Altitude effect the cooler size, performance
and first cost
• Air inlet temperature should be chosen
prudently… let’s see how
Historical Weather Data for Tucson
Elevation: 2584 feet; Latitude: 32 08N; Longitude: 110 56W
120 117
110
100
100
90 87
Average Temp (F)
Average High Temp (F)
Highest Recorded Temp (F)
80
70
60
50
y
ry
t
ly
ay
ec e r
il
ov e r
ne
r
ch
us
be
be
ar
pr
Ju
ua
b
ob
M
Ju
ar
nu
ug
em
A
em
em
br
ct
Ja
pt
O
Fe
Se
D
N
• Case 1 – M/L station, FBE coated pipe, no
critical delivery points & adequate line pack
– 90°F – line pack and slowing the unit… small $
• Case 2 – M/L station, coal tar pipe coating, no
critical delivery points & adequate line pack
– 100°F – line pack and slowing the unit… larger $$
• Case 3 – Booster station & critical 24/7 delivery
– 117°F – require water assisted cooling with 10°F
temperature approach… very large $$$$
Design – Material - Construction
Cooler A Cooler B
• Size 16.0 x 44.0 • Size 14.5 x 46.0
• Tube rows 6 • Tube rows 5
• Rows/Pass 6/2 • Rows/Pass 5/2
• Assure the design pressure is as specified
• Assure cooler will fit your plot plan including walkways
and tube headers
• Top to bottom or ‘over and under’ pass arrangements
are thermally preferable to side to side arrangements;
especially true if condensation is present
• An even number of passes will have the inlet and outlet
headers on the same end
• Unless you are working in viscous fluids you do not want
to specify turbulators or accelerator rods
• Hail screens, Louvers (API standard) & galvanizing
depend upon environmental considerations
Cooler A Cooler B
• Size of nozzle (2) 12.00 • Size of nozzle (2)
10.00
• Sloping tubes is desirable where condensates
are expected
• Specify gasketed shoulder type header plugs
– Specify compatible thread lubricant be used on all
straight threaded connections
– Specify that no thread sealant is to be used on
straight threaded connections
• Verify nozzle sizes, rating and facing
• Ensure sufficient drains, vents and monitoring
points (pressure and temperature) are specified
on the header as required
Cooler A Cooler B
• Tubes / Bundle 441 • Tubes / Bundle 333
• Length 44.0 ft • Length 46.0 ft
• Minimum tube thickness

Tube Diameter 5/8" 1" 1-1/4"
Alloy Tube 18 BWG 16 BWG 14 BWG
Carbon Steel Tube 16 BWG 0.083" 0.095"
• Specify tension wound L foot fins for temperatures up to
350°F
• “Radiograph in accordance with API 661” NO
• “Construction is in complete compliance with API 661;
list all exceptions on technical notes” YES
Mechanical Equipment

• HP/Fan, Design 27.2 • HP/Fan, Design 28.5
• DBA 83 • DBA 84
Fans
• Real fan efficiencies can vary as much as 33%
– Recirculation at hub and blade tips reduce fan efficiency
– Motor current is at rated value but net air flow through the
cooling section varies
– Tapered fan blades are more efficient
– Twisted fan blades are more efficient
– Blade tip treatments increases efficiency
– Straight ‘machete’ type fans blades are less desirable
– Increased hub diameters or disks (~30%) increases fan
efficiency
– In the past critical applications received design multipliers of 1.1,
1.15 or 1.2 to insure the cooler would perform properly; 1.1
became the norm to address fan deficiencies
Fans - continued
• API 661 requires a fan and motor capable of
delivering 10% excess capacity
• Bays should be set close together or far apart to
reduce hot air recirculation
• Manufactures have a tendency to limit the height
of legs, which reduces cost of the structure
– A minimum cooler/fan height of 12 feet is suggested
– Fan calculation typically assume unrestricted air
supply to the fans
– Proximity of other heat sources should also be
considered
Special Thanks!
• Dan Huffman, The Huffman Company, Ltd.

• Bulent Turan, TPS, LLC
• Randy Raymer, El Paso Pipeline Group
• Hubert Eldridge, El Paso Pipeline Group
Source of Natural Gas Cost,
Supply and Consumption Data
• U.S. Energy Information Administration

• Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with
Projections to 2030
– Report #: DOE / EIA-0383 (2007)
– Release date full report: February 2007
Operational Examples – Session 2
• Cost of Compression
• Pipeline Flow Losses
• Control Valves, Hidden Costs
• Part Load Operation
• Gas Turbines and Regenerators
• Combined Station Inefficiencies
The Cost of Compression
What is the discharge pressure of a
compressor given the following data?
• 10,500 BHP
• 95% Mechanical Efficiency
• 85% Compression Efficiency
• 500 MMSCF/D Gas Flow
• 550 PSIG Suction Pressure
• 60 F Suction Temperature
• No Pressure Losses
• Solve for HP/MM
– HP = BHP x Mechanical Efficiency
– HP = 10,500 x .95
– HP = 9,975
– HP/MM = 9,975 / 500 MM
– HP/MM = 19.95
• Using the an equation of state solve for a

discharge pressure and temperature
where the efficiency = 85% and the
HP/MM = 19.95
Answer:
– Discharge Pressure = 820 PSIG
– Discharge Temperature = 118.9 F
What does the fuel cost to operate this
compressor for one year?
Assume:
– $8 / MCF
– 7000 BTU/BHP-HR
– LHV = 900 BTU (LHV) / SCF
– 100% runtime and 100% BHP utilization.
Solution:
– BTU / HR = 10,500 BHP x 7,000 BTU (LHV)
BHP-HR
= 73.5 x 10^6
– SCF / HR = 73.5 x10^6 BTU(LHV)/HR
900 BTU(LHV)/SCF
= 81,667
– MCF / HR = 81.667
– Annual Fuel = 81.667 MCF/HR x 24 x 365
– Annual Fuel = 715,400 MSCF/YR x 8
This engine burns $5.723 MM/YR.

What do we get in return for our $5.7 MM
annual investment?
The gas flowing in our pipeline (500MM/D)

is compressed from 550 to 820 PSIG.
What is the annual cost of
compression on a per PSI basis?
$ / PSI / YR = $5.7 MM / (820 – 550) PSI

~$21,200 / PSI / YR
• What is the cost of compression when it is
normalized to the average daily gas flow?
= $21,200/PSI/YR / 500 MMSCF/D

= $42.40/PSI/YR for every MM/D of gas flow
or
= $42,400/PSI/YR per BSCF/D
What is the effect of engine heat rate on
the cost of compression?
Cost of Compression vs. BSFC
$140,000
$8 per MSCF & LHV = 913.8
Mechanical Efficiency = 95%
Compression Efficiency = 85%
$120,000 Suction Pressure = 500 PSIG
Discharge Pressure = 744.4 PSIG
Compression Ratio = 1.475
$ / PSI / YR / BCF .
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
BSFC, BTU/BHP-HR
What is the effect of compression ratio on
Cost of Compression vs. Compression Ratio
$60,000
7,000 BSFC
$50,000 Mechanical Efficiency = 95%
Suction Pressure = 500
$ / YR / PSI / BCF
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Compression Ratio
What is the effect of suction pressure on
Cost of Compression vs. Suction Pressure
$250,000
7,000 BSFC
$200,000 Compression Efficiency = 85%
Suction
$ / YR / PSI / BCF
Pressure
$150,000
100
200
$100,000 300
400
500
$50,000 600
700
800
$0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Compression Ratio
Pressure Loss at Multiple
Compressor Stations and the
Cost of Compression
ABC Pipeline
ABC Pipeline transports gas from point A
to point B. There is 500 MMSCF/D
entering the pipeline at Point A. ABC
Pipeline in turn delivers the gas to point B
at a contract pressure of 550 PSIG. ABC
Pipeline has 5 compressor stations on this
segment of pipe.
ABC Pipeline Pressure Profile
850
800
750
700
A
Pressure, PSIG
650
600
550
B
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5
10,500 BHP 8,000 BHP 9,610 BHP 10,500 BHP 9,845 BHP
500
Design Flow = 500 MMSCF/D 7,000 BSFC
450
Delivery Pressure = 550 PSIG $8 per MSCF & LHV = 913.8
400
350
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
What happens to the pipeline pressure
profile when pressure losses are added to
the station piping?
Assume 5 PSI suction and 5 PSI

discharge losses at each station.
What is your guess?
• 500 PSIG
• 450 PSIG
• 400 PSIG
• 350 PSIG
• 300 PSIG
• 250 PSIG
The Effect of Station Piping Losses
and the Pipeline Pressure Profile
850
No Station
800
Piping Losses
750
700 A
Pressure, PSIG
650
600
550
B
Station 1 Station Station 3 Station 4 Station 5
500
5 PSI Suction & 5 PSI 163.5 PSI
450 Discharge
St ti Pi i L
400
386.5 PSIG
350
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
The station pressure losses will require
ABC pipeline to build a 6th compressor
station at point B to deliver gas at contract
pressure or add horsepower to an
upstream station.
The station at point B would require 9,050

BHP and consume $4.9 MM/YR in fuel.
What is the cost of compression for the 50
psi of station piping losses?
Assume that compression was added at

delivery point B.
– $ / PSI / YR = $4.9 MM / 50 PSI

– = $98,000 / PSI /YR
The cost of compression for these 50

PSI is 460% more than the base case.
Lessons Learned
• The Cost of Compression is effected by
– BSFC
– Compression Ratio
– Suction Pressure
– Pressure Losses
• Station pressure losses can effect the cost
of compression at downstream stations
Pressure, Flow and
Pipeline Losses
Finding Good Data
• Search 2005 historical data base
• Search for 3 hr or more time periods were
data remained stable.
– Station suction and discharge pressures
– Pipeline flows
– Receipts and deliveries between the stations
are negligible.
Pipeline Pressure Loss
150
130
Pressure Loss, PSI
110
90
All Data
70
50
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Flow, MM/D
650 - 700 PSIG Upstream Pressure
150
130
Pressure Loss, PSI
110
90
650
660
70 670
680
690
50
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Flow, MM/D
580 & 680 PSIG Upstream Pressure
150
130
Pressure Loss, psi
110
90
580
680
Linear (580)
70
Linear (680)
50
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Flow, MM/D
What are the potential fuel savings by
operating with the upstream pressure at
680 PSIG vs 580 PSIG?
– 10 PSIG less pressure loss

– Cost of Compression = $95,700 / PSI /YR
• Annual Savings = $957,000 / YR

Lessons Learned
• Higher pipeline pressures reduce flowing

losses.
Pressure Loss Across
Control Valves
How much horsepower does it take to
compress 300 MM/D from 500 PSIG to
700 PSIG?
Assume
– Compression efficiency = 85%
– 5 psig suction & 5 psig discharge losses
– 60 F suction temperature
Solve for HP/MM
• Using an equation of state solve for a discharge

temperature where the efficiency = 85%.
– Discharge temperature = 111.9 F
• Then solve for the change in enthalpy (HP/MM)

between the suction and discharge conditions.
– HP/MM = 17.71
Calculate BHP
• Compressor HP = 17.71 HP/MM x 300 MM

= 5312 HP
• BHP = 5312 HP / .95

= 5591 BHP
500 MM/D 200 MM/D
475 PSIG 700 PSIG
Compressor
Station
300 MM/D
500 PSIG
How much fuel is wasted across the
pressure regulating valve?
Assume
– BSFC = 7,000 BTU/BHP-HR
– LHV = 913 BTU/SCF
– Gas = $8 MSCF
MSCF/HR = 5591 x 7000 / 913 / 1000
= 42.87
MMSCF/YR = 375,509
$ / YR = $3,004,080
500 MM/D 200 MM/D
475 PSIG 700 PSIG
Compressor
Station
300 MM/D
500 PSIG
$3 MM/YR Control Valve

The $3 MM/YR Valve
Potential Solutions
• Split the compression service
• Run more upstream BHP
• Change contract pressures
• Re-route the flow of gas
BSFC and the
Reciprocating Engine
Worthington ML-10
10,000
9,500
9,000
BSFC
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000
Brake Horsepower
Worthington SUTC 1610
10,000
9,500
9,000
BSFC
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000
Brake Horsepower
Part Load Operation
“A” Plant
• 12 Cooper-Bessemer GMW-6TF
• Installed in the 1950’s
• Engine site rated horsepower = 1,404 BHP
• Total installed horsepower = 16,848 BHP
• Designed for compression ratio ~ 2.0
“A” Plant - Today
• Operating pressures and flows have changed.
• Today “A” Plant is utilized as a swing station.
• Ratios varies between = 1.1 - 1.6.
• Engines run at part load most of the time.
• Average engine load = 58%
• Average required horsepower = 6,000 BHP
• Average units operating =8
Proposed Solution
Convert 7 of 12 engines as follows:
• Increase cylinder bore from 11.5 “ to 13” (max)

• Replace double deck compressor valves with
single deck valves
• Add clearance bottles for unloading.
Cooper-Bessemer GMW-6TF
16,000
15,000 Present Operating

Point = 58%
14,000 12,800 BSFC
13,000 Proposed Operating

Point = 81%
BSFC
12,000 10,600 BSFC
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110%
% Load
Potential Savings
• Average engine load = 1137 BHP

• Average units operating =6
• Shut down 2 engines
• BSFC improvement = 2,200 BSFC
• Annual Fuel Savings = $1,017,000 / YR
Lessons Learned
• Increasing engine load will reduce fuel

consumption
GE Frame 5 Overhaul
March 2006
GE Frame 5 - March 2006
Regenerator Repairs
Turbine BHP and BSFC
Before overhaul and regenerator repair
• Max AFC RPM and Exhaust Temp

• Developed 59% of design BHP
• BSFC = 123% of design heat rate
Before overhaul and regenerator repair
• Developed 59% of max BHP
After overhaul and regenerator repair

• Developed 95% of max BHP
• BHP Improvement = 7,900 BHP
• Fuel Savings = $2,500,000 / YR

Lessons Learned
• Overhaul your turbines

• Regularly Test Your Regenerators
Combined Station
Inefficiencies
Throughput = 886 MM/D
Annual Fuel = $11 MM $ / PSI / YR = $ 95,700
Suct. Pres. = 564 PSIG Expected $ / PSI / YR = $ 59,300
Disch. Pres. = 679 PSIG
Why is the cost of
compression so high?
• Turbines?
Installed 1953
Horsepower = 16,950 BHP
Design Heat Rate ~ 10,000 BSFC
Why is the station
efficiency so low?
Why is the cost of
• Turbines?
• Regenerators?
Why is the station
efficiency so low?
Regenerator Cracks
are Beyond Repair
Why is the cost of
• Turbines?
• Regenerator?
• Suction piping and Scrubbers?
Scrubber Differential Pressure
Aug 04 – April 06
SUCTION SCRUBBER DIFF PRESSURE (CORMIDWWS91A:PRI_INLET_SCRUB_DP) Cyclic
(9/9/2004 9:52:57 AM) 7.40 psid
(12/17/2005 2:46:54 AM) 5.65 psid -1.75 psid (463 days, 16:53:57)
10.00
Filter ∆P 7.4 psi

8.00
Filter ∆P 5.65 psi
6.00
4.00
Filter Element
2.00 R&R
0.00
8/1/2004 6/11/2005 4/22/2006
12:00:00 AM 11:40:14 PM 11:20:28 PM
Why is the cost of
• Turbines?
• Regenerator?
• Suction piping and Scrubbers?
• Discharge piping and coolers?
Station Piping Loses
• ~15 psi pressure loss from the suction piping,
valves and scrubbers.
• ~15 psi pressure loss from the discharge
piping, valves and gas cooling.
• ~25% of the BHP & fuel is used to overcome
the station piping pressure losses.
Solutions
• Replace regenerators
• Replace suction piping and plug valves
• Replace vertical scrubbers with one
designed to remove pigging debris.
• Replace discharge piping and plug valves
• More coolers to reduce pressure losses
• Replace orifice meter with an ultrasonic
• Potential Savings $ / YR = $4.2 MM
Solutions
OR
Replace the station

Thank you,
Questions?

Designing Compressor Stations at High Fuel Costs

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Designing Compressor Stations at High Fuel Costs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing & Operating

Compressor Stations When

Extrapolated Trend Line

• All three of these systems of price control discussed

• Major gas piping

• Pipe Length (ft) 300 / 300

• Heat Rate (Btu/BHP-hr) 7,500

• Major Gas Piping Velocity (fps) 30 to 50

• Suction Gas Velocity (fps) 59

• Compressor Suction Pressure (psig) 791.0

Fuel Cost / Year ($K)

$2,600 Fuel Cost / Year ($K)

• Cost of pipe, valves and fittings

• Present value of money

*May require the use of a crystal ball, weegee board, palm

Installed Cost of Pipe, Valves and Fittings

Present Value of Fuel Cost ($)

Suction Pressure Loss (psi)

• Major gas piping

Poorly designed and

The most misapplied, ill specified and misunderstood piece

Knowledge is available . . . from where?

• Liquid Samples from system or similar system analyzed for

• Onsite contaminant monitoring & analysis

• Share information with quality vendors

• Hold vendors accountable

• Continuous inspection & observation

Can we afford not to have

• If you are able to

• Scrubber - two stage device with second stage

• Efficiencies as good as 90 - 98% of 3 - 10 micron &

• Scrubbers make poor slug catchers (unless sized to

• Technology introduced in early 1980’s

Confined entry (top)

Operating Cost / Year ($K)

Operating Cost / Year ($K)

Filter ∆P 7.4 psi

Filter ∆P 5.65 psi

• Major gas piping

Inlet and Discharge

Wages & Salaries

Marketing & Sales

Field & Startup

Tangible Costs Intangible Costs

(MMSCFD) Poly. (system difference)

500 Q Delta FL/FL

• Major gas piping

Cooler A (Top) Cooler B (Bottom)

Cooler A (Top) Cooler B (Bottom)

• Altitude: insure the altitude that appears

• Minimum tube thickness

Cooler A (Top) Cooler B (Bottom)

• Dan Huffman, The Huffman Company, Ltd.

• U.S. Energy Information Administration

• Using the an equation of state solve for a

This engine burns $5.723 MM/YR.

The gas flowing in our pipeline (500MM/D)

$ / PSI / YR = $5.7 MM / (820 – 550) PSI

= $21,200/PSI/YR / 500 MMSCF/D

Assume 5 PSI suction and 5 PSI

The station at point B would require 9,050

Assume that compression was added at

– $ / PSI / YR = $4.9 MM / 50 PSI