SPE-171114-MS

Selection Criteria for Power Generation Systems To Minimise

Environmental Impact
Michael Welch, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Conference - Latin America held in Medellin, Colombia, 24 –26 September 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In many countries, Heavy and Extra Heavy oil reserves are located in sensitive environments, remote from
existing infrastructure. Heavy oil production is energy intensive, requiring the combustion of fossil fuels
to produce the heat and power required. Burning fossil fuels creates a wide variety of emissions to
atmosphere, such as the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released by burning carboniferous fuels to combustion
pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). In addition, Heavy Oil reservoirs tend to be gas deficient, and
often a low cost way of disposing of the small quantities of unwanted associated gas is to flare it, creating
a new source of emissions.
The first part of this paper looks at how to minimise emissions from energy production by making best
use of locally available fuels, such as associated gas, and employing energy efficient techniques such as
Cogeneration. It then discusses how the three most common power generation technologies – gas turbines,
reciprocating engines and steam turbines – can be applied to Heavy Oil operations to minimise the impact
of fossil fuel combustion.
However, building and operating a power plant or energy facility of any kind, also has other impacts
on the environment. There are transportation issues in getting the equipment to site in the first place, the
human impact on the environment due to both construction and operation of facilities, the issue of disposal
of produced wastes, and the need for continuous re-supply of the power plant with the consumable items
and spare parts to keep it operational. This paper therefore also compares the consumable and maintenance
needs of the three main power generation technologies to investigate the long term impact of operations
on the environment.

Introduction
Heavy oil production on a dollars per barrel basis tends to be more costly than ‘conventional’ oil
production. Production of heavy and extra heavy oil needs considerable energy, and this energy is required
in the form of both electrical power for pumps, heaters etc. and heat for fluid heating and separation
processes. While producing heavy oil creates many challenges both sub-surface and in the surface
facilities, one surface challenge is how to produce the energy required securely and cost-effectively. This
creates economic, technical and environmental challenges for operators.
2 SPE-171114-MS

In today’s carbon-constrained World, carbon di-

oxide (CO2) emissions to atmosphere from Oil &
Gas production are under scrutiny. These emissions
come from various sources: energy production, flar-
ing and transportation being three of the main ones.
But there are also ‘local’ pollutants formed when
fossil fuels are burned that also need to be consid-
ered: nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx),
carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons
(UHC). In most cases, these emissions are subject to
local regulations which limit the permitted levels of Figure 1—Example graph of Associated Gas availability compared to
these pollutants. gas required as fuel for power generation
In more conventional oil production, large quan-
tities of associated gas are usually available, providing the operator with a reliable, low (or zero) cost fuel
with which to produce the energy required for the production processes and enabling them to remain
independent from external energy providers. Being predominantly methane-based, associated gas is a low
carbon fuel compared to liquid fuels such as diesel or heavy fuel oil, and so produces lower CO2 emissions
on combustion than liquid fuels. It also burns more cleanly and completely in most instances, producing
lower levels of NOx, CO and UHCs.
Heavy oil reservoirs though tend to have a low Gas Oil Ratio (GOR), and frequently there is
insufficient gas produced to provide the fuel required over the lifetime of the field. This means alternative
sources of energy need to be sought, such as importing a suitable fuel, or power from an external source,
or both, but this makes crude oil production reliant on external sources, and sometimes, especially in
remote locations, this is simply not an economically (or technically) viable solution. So the produced
crude needs to be considered as the main fuel source for energy production to avoid transportation and
electricity transmission problems, and keep the cost of energy production under the control of the field
operator.
In addition, while sometimes there will be insufficient gas from the outset, in other cases, as shown in
Figure 1 below, there is sufficient gas in the early years of production, but, as gas production declines in
later field life, at some point in time an alternative fuel must be employed and the problem of how to deal
with the unwanted associated gas arises. This potentially complicates the design of the energy production
facilities as this switch in fuels needs to be considered from the outset of the project so as not to interrupt
production at a later date.
The challenge now is how to produce the required energy with minimal economic impact on the cost
of production, but at the same time minimising the environmental impact.
Providing the Energy required
There are two basic choices to be made when considering the main power supply for production facilities:
power from an external provider or off-site location, or in-situ power generation.
Power can be sourced from an external third party supplier, such as the local electrical utility company.
However, there may not be a nearby transmission line, or one of sufficient capacity, to tie into. It may not
be economically or environmentally feasible to construct such a grid connection depending on the location
of the oil production facilities, and even if there is, the permitting process to construct a high voltage line
may cause delays to the project timescale.
Power from a central power plant is also often quoted as reducing CO2 emissions compared to in-situ
generation, citing ‘efficiency of scale’, on the assumption that larger power plants are more efficient than
smaller ones. Where the power is sourced from 100% renewable or mainly zero carbon sources, as in
Norway which produces around 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric power, this is most certainly the
SPE-171114-MS 3

Figure 2—Comparison of CO2 emissions in kg/h for power only for externally-sourced electricity against in-situ generation

case. However, in most parts of the World electricity is produced from a mix of sources: coal, natural gas,
nuclear etc. as well as renewables. From an electricity system with a high fossil fuel content in the energy
mix, CO2 savings are less obvious compared to in-situ generation using a locally available fuel produced
at site, and may actually increase CO2 emissions when the transmission losses are taken into consider-
ation.
Other aspects of sourcing power from an off-site location that need to be considered are the security
of supply and cost of electricity: regardless of any potential financial and environmental benefits of power
from a central power plant, it is likely that some power generation will be installed on site anyway as a
back-up supply in case of loss of the main power supply. In addition, the operator has to be aware of the
potential of increases in power prices over the lifetime of the oilfield, as fuel costs rise or legislative
changes cause an increase in the cost of power generation which the third party generator will pass on to
his customers.
In-situ power generation allows the operator to be autonomous, isolated from the technical, political
and financial issues of external power generation. A typical in-situ power plant is based on an ‘n⫹1’ unit
design has built-in redundancy to ensure the highest reliability. Modern small-scale power generation
technologies also have relatively high efficiencies, so CO2 emissions could be similar to those of central
power plant or total electricity system, especially where a typical fuel mix is used in the central power
generation system. Burning a fossil fuel will however lead to local combustion emissions – NOx, CO,
UHCs, SOx etc. which may or may not be subject to National emissions legislation, or guidelines on the
maximum permissible emissions of these pollutants.
However power from an external source has a drawback in Heavy Oil production that cannot easily be
addressed: the need for process heat. The high quantities and high temperatures of heat required could lead
to the need for installation of stand-alone fired boilers, with the associated fuel and additional space
requirements. In-situ power generation could incorporate a Waste Heat Recovery Unit (WHRU) to
produce some or all of the required heat, reducing the number and size of fired boilers required, and
actually offering a higher overall energy efficiency – and hence lower global CO2 emissions – than can
be achieved by using stand-alone fired boilers and a remotely-located central power plant.
Figures 2 and 3 below show the comparative CO2 emissions for in-situ power generation against
externally-sourced power, where both gas-fired only and a typical fuel mix for power generation are
considered. In Figure 2 only the CO2 emissions generated to provide 49MW of electricity are considered
and power transmission losses are ignored, whereas in Figure 3 as well as the 49MW of electricity, the
CO2 emissions created in producing 69MW of heat are included. In both cases, the in-situ power is
assumed to come from gas turbines operating on associated gas, and in Figure 3 the heat is produced by
associated gas-fired boilers in the externally sourced power case or by Waste Heat Recovery Units
(WHRU) for the gas turbine.
4 SPE-171114-MS

Figure 3—Comparison of CO2 emissions in kg/h for power and heat for externally-sourced electricity against in-situ generation

Fuel Options for In-Situ Energy production

If in-situ power generation is selected, then the fuel source or sources need to be selected. Normally on
oil production facilities, the associated gas is used as the fuel, but as discussed in the Introduction, Heavy
Oil developments may be gas deficient and so alternatives may be needed for all or part of the field life.
Where associated gas is available, this is the most obvious choice of fuel as it is readily available locally
and free. When quantities are insufficient though, it raises the questions as to what to do with the
associated gas not used as a fuel, and what to use instead of associated gas. In some locations it may be
economically feasible to import natural gas from an external source, or associated gas from a ‘gas rich’
oilfield. This option however adds to the project CAPEX, and now the fuel has a cost, and this may also
lead to production being dependent on an external 3rd party supply.
If gas import is not feasible, then the operator needs to look at liquid fuels. There are a wide range of
liquid fuels that can be considered, based on cost and availability, but liquid fuels have a higher carbon
content than natural gas and so will lead to a higher carbon footprint. In addition, combustion emissions,
especially NOx and UHCs, tend to be higher on liquid fuels compared to gas fuels. The facilities design
also needs to take into account the space required for correct unloading and storage of liquid fuels: fuel
contamination can lead to equipment failure.
Diesel or kerosene are the least technically challenging liquid fuel options – they are readily available,
can be used in most power generation technologies, and are a relatively ‘clean’ fuel: they have a low
sulphur content and can be used in Low Emissions combustors to reduce pollutant emissions. Such liquid
fuels though, as premium refined fuels that are much in demand for transport applications, are expensive,
which will add to the cost of production – the cost adder can be as much as $1 per barrel – or may be in
short supply due to refinery capacity constraints. These premium liquids also need to be sourced
externally, so the site will need to be constantly re-supplied to ensure fuel availability, adding further to
operational costs and creating additional indirect CO2 emissions from transportation.
While still having the same external supply issues as premium refined fuels, another option is to use
lower quality refined fuels, such as Intermediate (IF) and Heavy Fuel Oils (HFO). These fuels have higher
viscosities and higher sulphur contents than diesel and kerosene, which makes them cheaper, but it reduces
the technology options available for the power plant as fewer units can use these fuels. The ability to use
these fuels in Low Emissions combustor variants of the different technologies is also reduced, leading to
an increase in the emission of combustion pollutants. These IF and HFOs tend to cost around half as much
as high quality, low sulphur Diesels such as #2 diesel, and will reduce the production cost adder, although
some fuel pre-treatment may be necessary to make them suitable for use in the power plant.
The final option for liquid fuel is to use the produced crude oil itself. This eliminates the transportation
and some of the storage issues, but crude oil, especially heavy crude oil, is a challenging fuel which few
SPE-171114-MS 5

technologies are able to burn, especially in Low Emissions combustors. This reduces the options available
for the design of the power plant still further, and adds additional fuel pre-treatment needs, but assuming
a suitable power generation solution can be found, offers potentially the lowest cost solution. However,
it can lead to a poor environmental footprint.
The main challenges for power generation technologies associated with crude oil are:
– Viscosity
– Alkali and heavy metal content
– Total Acid Number (TAN)
Burner and fuel injector technologies have a maximum permissible viscosity that can be accepted.
Viscosity can be reduced by heating the crude oil to a temperature that reduces the viscosity to a suitable
level, or by blending the crude oil with a lighter fraction, such as diesel or condensates. There is a limit
to the how much the crude oil can be heated before ‘coking’ and other chemical changes start to occur.
The effects of alkali and heavy metal contamination of the crude oil can be mitigated by employing fuel
treatment procedures, such as centrifuging and washing to remove alkali metals, and adding chemical
inhibitors to counter-act the formation of potentially corrosive compounds such as vanadium pentoxide.
From an operator’s perspective, the ideal situation would be to make the best use of the available
associated gas, using this as the main fuel, and then ‘topping up’ with liquid fuel when insufficient gas
is available. This is known as bi-fuelling, mixed fuel operation or simultaneous firing. There are
technology options that permit this to occur, even when heavy crude oil is the liquid fuel. This option
maximizes the use of the ‘free’ associated gas and limits the costs associated with liquid fuel consumption,
while also offering probably the optimum solution from an environmental perspective with lower
combustion and CO2 emissions than a 100% liquid fuel alternative, and the avoidance of, or reduction in,
flaring of unused associated gas.

Rotating Equipment Technologies for Power Generation

There are three main power generation technologies that can be considered when crude oil is the main
fuel: gas turbines, reciprocating engines and a boiler/steam turbine combination. In all three cases, not all
models of turbine, engine or boiler are able to operate on crude oil, and for those that can, special
considerations are necessary to ensure reliable operation. All three technologies require fuel pre-treatment
of some kind to ensure the fuel is supplied at the correct viscosity, and to reduce the metal content to avoid
corrosion in high temperature areas.
The boiler / steam turbine solution is potentially the most robust as it has no moving parts in the
combustion sytem that can be affected by the ash formed during crude oil combustion. All combustion
takes place in the boiler, which offers plenty of space and enables the burners to be large and designed
specifically for crude oil or mixed fuel operation, so maximising the amount of associated gas that can be
used. High pressure steam produced in the boiler is then fed to a steam turbine that generates the required
power. The drawback is the space required for the boilers, steam turbine and all the necessary auxiliary
systems such as water treatment packages and condensers, and the size and weight of the constituent parts
of the system that must be transported to site. Such a system also has a lowest power generation efficiency
of the available options, usually in the range 18 – 25%, and so will use the most fuel to produce the
required energy. From a environmental perspective, while Low Emissions burners can be fitted to reduce
combustion emissions, the low electrical efficiency means it will in most instances have the highest CO2
emissions for energy generation for the fuel mix used. This solution offers high reliabilities and
availabilities as very little maintenance is required, although any maintenance required on the boiler,
burner or steam turbine has to be carried out in-situ and so downtime for scheduled maintenance could
be extensive. A source of water is a necessity, as a portion of the steam will be lost in leakage or during
boiler ‘blowdown’ and suitably treated make-up water will be needed to make good these losses.
6 SPE-171114-MS

There are a number of reciprocating engine mod-

Table 1—Comparison of typical weights and space requirements for
2 ⴛ 17MW generator sets
els that can operate on crude oil, but for applications
Space Required Weight
where there is associated gas available, it is more
Dual Fuel Engine 660m 2
2100 Tonnes usual to consider dual fuel (gas/liquid) technologies
Boiler / Steam Turbine 1000m2 900 Tonnes (dry) than pure liquid fuel engines, so that the associated
Gas Turbine 288m2 430 Tonnes
gas can be utilised. In this instance, diesel is often
required as the start-up fuel for liquid fuel operation,
and as an intermediate step when switching between
gas fuel and crude oil operation. A small continuous liquid fuel pilot is used in gas fuel operation, and may
also be required on crude oil operation too. Unlike Boilers and Gas Turbines, the TAN of crude oil can
be an issue on a reciprocating engine, as at high acidity levels crude oil accelerates the degradation of
lubricating oil and corrosion in the fuel injectors and cylinders of an engine. The dual fuel engine offers
the highest electrical efficiency of the three technologies, in excess of 40% being achievable, and
correspondingly the lowest CO2 emissions for power generation only, although on gas fuel operation there
are considerable methane emissions through methane slip. Methane is considered to have 21 to 25 times
the Global Warming potential of CO2, and a Marintek study on ship operations in 2011 relating to
switching from marine diesel to LNG to reduce CO2 emissions due to the low carbon content of LNG,
found that due to methane slip, greenhouse gas emissions were unchanged or negative compared to similar
operations on Marine Gas Oil (MGO). Most dual fuel engines do not have bi-fuelling capability, so they
are unable to maximize associated gas usage (mixed fuel operation is possible on the so-called Gas Diesel
technology, but this requires the fuel gas to be provided at very high pressures). Gas or liquid fuel
operation on most dual fuel engines is an on/off consideration, so as associated gas volumes decrease, this
can only be compensated for by changing the number of machines running on gas or liquid fuel, and
finding other methods of disposal for the unused gas. While the efficiency is high, dual fuel engines have
several drawbacks from plant design and operational perspectives, notably the size and weight of medium
speed units compared to the other technologies, as shown in Table 1 below. The need for a constant supply
of diesel to act as a pilot fuel and the level of consumption of lubricating oil are also potential drawbacks
from a cost and logistics perspective: a dual fuel engine will consume about 0.4 litres of oil for every
1MWh generated, so an 8MW dual fuel engine will consume over 3 litres of oil an hour, or 72 litres per
day. As well as topping up almost daily to compensate for the oil consumed, this oil must be replaced
regularly, requiring regular transport shipments of fresh oil and disposal of the used oil, and storage of
lube oil on the site. The dual fuel engine also has the shortest time between maintenance intervals,
requiring some form of maintenance intervention approximately every 3000 hours of operation. Major
overhauls have to be carried out on site, requiring major outages approximately every 36000 hours
operation, with each of these outages requiring between 10 and 20 days downtime, and considerable
manpower, to undertake this work. Thus a dual fuel engine has the lowest availability of the three
technologies and the highest manpower costs associated with maintenance.
There are very few gas turbines that can operate on crude oil due to the viscosity and contaminant
issues, but those that can usually have bi-fuelling capability which, like boilers, is able to maximize the
usage of associated gas and limit the amount of gas that needs to be flared. Those that can operate on crude
oil tend to be more mature models with low firing temperatures, and so have relatively low electrical
efficiencies compared to more modern gas turbines. The power generation efficiency will be in the range
25% to 32% depending on the model, better than a steam turbine system but not as good as a dual fuel
engine, so CO2 emissions will be correspondingly higher when considering power generation only, which
is shown in Figure 4 below. However, combustion efficiency is very high and emissions of unburned
hydrocarbons (methane slip) are very low. Gas turbines offer a very compact, lightweight power
generation package compared to the alternative technologies, and thus require the smallest footprint for
the power required. In addition, most auxiliary systems are mounted on the gas turbine skid or on top of
SPE-171114-MS 7

Figure 4 —Comparison of CO2 emissions in kg/h for 49MW electricity using associated gas fuel

Figure 5—Comparison of CO2 emissions in kg/h for 49MW electricity and 69MW of heat (as LP Steam) using gas fuel

the enclosure, simplifying the installation. Generally gas turbines require minimal maintenance interven-
tions – a single outage every 6000 to 8000 operating hours, and if the gas turbine is not operating at full
load, this can be extended in certain instances to 10,000 hours or more. Maintenance downtime can be
reduced by using a ‘core exchange’ philosophy, where component replacement is undertaken off-site at
a specialized workshop. Such exchanges can be undertaken in less than 48 hours, offering high unit
availability. One criticism often aimed at gas turbines is the reduction in power as ambient temperature
increases: this power fall-off can be compensated for by air inlet chilling. Waste heat from the exhaust can
be used in a simple chiller unit to reduce the ambient air temperature seen by the gas turbine and ensure
maximum output can be achieved at the design temperature.
Optimizing the Power Plant for maximum Energy efficiency
Whilst in the above section the efficiency of power generation only was discussed, it has to be
remembered that for Heavy Oil developments considerable quantities of heat may also be required for
process heating and tank storage heating. The waste heat from power generation can be utilized to provide
this process heat, a configuration known as Cogeneration. This can have a considerable impact on the
overall energy efficiency achievable, which in turn leads to a reduction in fuel consumption and ultimately
the global CO2 emissions too. Figure 5 below gives an indication of the CO2 emissions reductions
achievable by employing Cogeneration.
All three power generation technologies considered are suitable for Cogeneration applications. By
looking at the form in which the process heat is required, and the ratio of heat to electrical power required,
8 SPE-171114-MS

Figure 6 —Chart showing overall energy efficiency versus heat to power ratio comparison for a 19MW gas turbine and a dual fuel engine of equivalent
power output for steam production

a recommendation on the most suitable technology from an overall energy efficiency perspective can be
made.
For a boiler / steam turbine solution, the ‘waste’ heat energy from power generation comes in the form
of steam or hot water. This steam can either be extracted from the steam turbine at various points along
the turbine to provide process steam at the desired pressure and temperature, or by employing a
back-pressure type steam turbine rather than a condensing type. The issue with installing a back-pressure
type turbine is that with no heat load, it is not possible to generate electricity, while steam extraction from
a condensing type steam turbine will reduce the amount of power generated. Steam turbine solutions are
best suited to Cogeneration applications with a high heat to power ratio, in the region of 4:1 or higher (i.e.
4MW of heat required for every 1MW of electricity needed), in order to achieve optimum overall energy
efficiency. This configuration is not ideal for facilities where thermal oil or high temperature hot water
(HTHW) is used for process heat transfer, as intermediate heat exchangers will be required, adding to cost
and reducing efficiency.
Dual fuel engines have waste heat that can be recovered from both the engine cooling and lube oil
cooling circuits (hot water), and from the hot exhaust gases. Only the exhaust gases are suitable for the
high temperatures required for producing steam or heating thermal oil, as almost 50% of the waste heat
generated by a dual fuel engine is in a low temperature form from the different cooling circuits. This limits
the steam raising potential and the overall energy efficiency achievable. For installations requiring low
temperature hot water (⬍100°C) very high overall energy efficiencies can be achieved (around 90%), or
for steam production with a low heat to power ratio (less than 1:1) reasonably high energy efficiencies can
be obtained (around 60%), as shown in Figure 6 below. Shortfall in steam production can be compensated
for by installing separate fired boilers. This will boost the overall energy efficiency of the system to
around the 70 – 75% mark due to the high boiler efficiency, but comes with the disadvantages of
increasing the CAPEX, weight, maintenance and space requirements as the additional auxiliary systems
required are added.
In contrast to dual fuel engines, the majority of waste heat in a gas turbine lies within the hot exhaust
gases, making the gas turbine very suitable for steam raising applications and thermal oil heating. The gas
turbine is a good fit for projects with a heat to power ratio between 1:1 and 1.5:1, with overall energy
efficiencies in excess of 70% achievable. With a high oxygen content still present in the exhaust gases,
supplementary firing can be used to boost steam production to achieve heat to power ratios up to as much
as 4:1. This enables overall energy efficiencies of up to 90% to be achieved.
SPE-171114-MS 9

Figure 7—Typical NOx emissions in g/kWh on liquid fuel with no NOx suppression technology employed

Mixed Fuel Operation (Bi-fuelling)

Flaring of associated gas is increasingly discouraged by regulators, so it is important to try to maximize
the usage of the available associated gas. As previously mentioned, on occasions there is insufficient
associated gas to fully fuel the power plant. One option in this scenario is to use liquid fuel to operate the
power generation equipment, and use the associated gas in separate fired boilers to produce the heat
required. This though is not the optimum option from an efficiency perspective, and can lead to more
liquid fuel being consumed than really necessary, increasing the cost of production and reducing the
amount of crude available for export, if the produced crude is the liquid fuel used.
There are options for all three technologies under consideration that will enable both gas and liquid fuel
to be used simultaneously. This enables the maximum amount of associated gas and the minimum amount
of liquid fuel to be used, maximizing overall energy efficiency and minimizing fuel costs, while
minimizing the volume of associated gas that needs to be flared. For boilers and certain gas turbine
models, bi-fuelling is accomplished through control system modifications, with no changes to the main
hardware. For engines, it is more usual to use a different engine design – the so-called Gas Diesel variant
– where the gas is injected at very high pressures (around 300 bar) compared to the low pressure gas fuel
systems of dual fuel engines. In bi-fuelling mode, there is often an operating ‘envelope’ defined which
dictates the minimum and maximum flows of the gas and liquid fuels, and the load range across which
bi-fuelling can be applied. If the site operating point (i.e. associated gas availability) falls outside of this
envelope, then operation on 100% gas fuel or 100% liquid fuel will be required.

Minimizing the Local Environmental Footprint

As well as CO2, combustion emissions such as NOx, CO and SOx are often of concern to policy makers.
Figure 7 below shows typical NOx emissions from the different technologies where a liquid fuel such as
crude oil is used, but with no emission abatement systems fitted. There are various techniques for reducing
NOx and CO though, from employing low emissions combustion technology to water (or steam) injection
into turbine combustors, or post-combustion clean-up using scrubbers or Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR). However, post-combustion clean-up increases CAPEX, adds to operating costs, reduces the power
output and plant efficiency, and increases the complexity of the power plant. It also increases the space
required, not only for the SCR itself but also the storage space required for the chemicals used, and
potentially adds an additional safety hazard. However when considering SOx emissions, for all three
technologies a simple adage applies: sulphur in ⫽ SOx out. Sulphur emissions can only be reduced by
removing the sulphur from the fuel, whether the fuel is gaseous or liquid, using proprietary technologies,
or by some form of post-combustion removal.
10 SPE-171114-MS

Burners in boilers often have multi-fuel Low Emissions capability, which encompass crude oil as a fuel
too, although some designs may need a continuous diesel fuel pilot for crude oil operation.
While associated gas can be, and has been, used in Dry Low Emissions (DLE) burners in gas turbines,
crude oil is not a suitable fuel for this combustion technology, so, if crude oil operation is required at any
time, then conventional combustion technology must be employed. This creates higher emissions than for
a DLE system on both gas and liquid fuels, but NOx emissions can be reduced by water or steam injection.
The water quality required is very stringent, but can be obtained from locally available water sources by
using the correct water treatment system, although this will potentially involve requiring additional space,
adding additional CAPEX and increased operating costs due to the chemicals required. Water injection
does have a small positive impact on power output, but a small negative impact on electrical efficiency.
While water injection decreases NOx emissions – it ‘quenches’ the flame temperature and reduces thermal
NOx production – it causes an increase in CO emissions compared to DLE technology.
For dual fuel engines, currently the only possibility for NOx abatement is post-combustion clean-up
using Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or similar. Like water injection for the gas turbine, such
systems add cost and take up valuable space. In the case of dual fuel engines, the addition of post-
combustion clean-up reduces power output and efficiency, and also creates potential issues around
transportation and storage of the urea required for injection into the exhaust gas stream in the SCR.
Non-Combustion Environmental Considerations
While combustion of fuel creates the most regulated pollutants, generating energy at an oilfield and its
associated processing facilities creates other impacts on the environment which can be undesirable,
especially in sensitive ecological environments.
One consideration in a global ‘wellhead to wheels’ calculation for the global CO2 footprint is the
indirect CO2 emissions due to logistics. The more consumables an energy centre requires, the more
transportation required. As well as CO2 emissions, the need for continuous resupply of the site with
replacement parts, chemicals for water treatment, or lubricating oil, or diesel fuel, potentially creates large
volumes of traffic. This requires construction of roads, potentially through protected areas, and can lead
to the loss of habitat and death in traffic collisions of endangered species. To minimise these impacts, an
operator should consider the use of the power generation technology that offers the lowest consumption
of consumable items and fluids to minimise transportation needs. During the construction phase, care
should be taken to ensure minimal environmental impact by for example transporting the equipment in
modules that can be quickly assembled at site rather than shipping items piecemeal for ‘stick-building’ on
location.
Energy generation creates wastes that must be disposed of: used lubricating oil, spent water treatment
chemicals, dirty water for example. In addition, the presence of people on site creates wastes. Ideally, the
energy generation solution should therefore require the minimum number of people to be on-site
continuously during plant operation, and generate only small quantities of wastes for disposal. During the
construction phase, modular construction again helps here as it reduces the manpower needed on site
during the construction phase, reducing the impact of humans on the local ecosystem.
In sensitive environments, space requirements can be a major concern – the less space required, the less
land and habitat disturbance. A compact power generation installation allows the maximum amount of
space to be made available for processing equipment, and reduces the overall plot size required for
operations.
The impact of noise, artificial light and vibration on the local environment also needs to be considered.
These can disturb animals and insects, as well as local inhabitants. Most regulators require such
atmospheric light and noise pollution to be kept to a minimum.
Of our three main power generation technologies considered, the gas turbine probably has the lowest
environmental impact in this category, unless water injection is required for NOx emission reduction in
SPE-171114-MS 11

which case the boiler / steam turbine combination runs it close. The low levels of waste generated (wash
water), low consumables consumption (such as lubricating oil) and low maintenance manpower needs
enable gas turbines to operate in the most sensitive environments with the lowest potential impact. The
high frequency noise from the air intakes and exhaust can be easily attenuated to achieve low noise levels
at site boundaries. With high lubricating oil consumption and waste oil / sludge generation, frequent
maintenance intervals and relatively high manpower needs, the dual fuel engine solution has probably the
highest impact in this category. In many instances, the engines are housed on site within buildings which,
while providing noise attenuation during the operational phase, add to the negative impacts on the
environment during the construction phase.

Conclusions
Each of the technologies has advantages and disadvantages, so careful consideration should be paid during
the evaluation phase to the most important criteria for the specific project being undertaken. The actual
amount of power and heat required for the project may help determine the most appropriate technology
simply due to the availability of products with the required outputs.
CAPEX has not been discussed, as a wider view needs to be taken. For just the power generation
equipment itself, the boiler/steam turbine option is probably the lowest cost, with the dual fuel engine and
gas turbine packages costing approximately the same as each other. However, the CAPEX will vary
depending on whether units are modularized, the complexity of installation of the different options, the
cost of the associated heat recovery equipment and/or additional fired boilers to generate all the necessary
process heat, the necessary interconnections between the generating set and auxiliary systems located
elsewhere and the time required for installation. Transportation costs should not be overlooked, as these
can be significant if weight or size restrictions are in place.
In terms of space and weight, extremely important considerations for transportation and minimizing
plot size requirements, the gas turbine option offers the most compact and lightweight solution. The
compact and modular nature of the gas turbine package makes transportation less complex, and the core
exchange concept helps reduce maintenance downtime, manpower requirements, spares storage space and
shipping costs. Transportation issues may affect the output rating of the generator sets or boilers selected
– size restrictions may lead to multiple smaller units being necessary rather than a smaller number of more
powerful units. This is particularly true of dual fuel engines and boilers due to the size and weight of the
main equipment.
In terms of energy efficiency, by employing Cogeneration great improvements can be made compared
to separate generation of heat and power, with a reduction in the cost of fuel and in CO2 emissions. The
technology that offers the highest overall energy efficiency is dependent on the heat to power ratio
required by the facility, and the form in which the heat is required. Most Heavy Oil production facilities
require process heat as steam, or use thermal oil for process heating, and many installations appear to have
heat to power ratios between 1:1 to 1:2, which would seem to indicate a gas turbine solution is the
optimum fit from an energy efficiency perspective.
For Reliability and Availability, all options show high reliability, especially as redundancy is usually
designed in, with better than 99% reliability being achievable for the complete power plant rather than
individual generator sets. A boiler/steam turbine solution probably has the best availability, with low
maintenance requirements, while a dual fuel engine will most likely have the lowest availability, although
potentially ‘total plant’ availability can be improved by increasing the number of units installed and
having additional redundancy to compensate for long outages for overhauls. Steam turbines and gas
turbines will also require the least maintenance interventions and less consumable items during operation,
which reduce manpower needs and supply logistics complexity.
12 SPE-171114-MS

The ability of the power generators to operate on a wide fuel range, including a mixture of liquid and
gas fuels, can be extremely beneficial. If this is a key criterion, then this suggests a boiler/steam turbine
is the optimum choice, closely followed by the gas turbine solution.
From an operational logistics perspective, the gas turbine is most likely the best solution. Boilers will
need a continuous supply of chemicals for the water treatment system, while employing dual fuel engines
will lead to the site requiring continuous resupply of lubricating oil, and disposal of waste oil, and diesel
oil for use as the pilot fuel when gas is the primary fuel. The gas turbine requires little resupply of
consumables once operational, and generates very little waste for disposal. When crude oil is used as the
fuel, there will be a need for chemicals and clean water for fuel treatment, but the requirements for this
will be similar for all three technologies, as those units that have the capability to operate on crude oil tend
to have very similar limitations on contaminant levels.
Overall, for minimizing the environmental impact of power generation in Heavy Oil operations, a gas
turbine option is likely to provide the best overall solution, but this depends on whether a gas turbine
model suitable for crude oil or bi-fuelling operation is available at the power outputs required.

Nomenclature
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DF Dual Fuel
GT Gas Turbine
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
IFO Intermediate Fuel
LS Low Sulfur
MGO Marine Gas Oil
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SOx Oxides of sulfur
TAN Total Acid Number
UHC Unburned Hydrocarbons
WHRU Waste Heat Recovery Unit

Acknowledgment
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my colleagues within Siemens Energy, and in particular Per
Johansson and Simon Larsson of Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB in Finspong, Sweden, and
Simon Schulze of Siemens Energy AG Oil & Gas in Goerlitz, Germany

References
Total Presentation to NPF Conference, 28 August 2012 (http://www.npf.no/getfile.php/konferanser/
offentlig/Martin%20Linge%20-20An%20old%20discovery%20becomes%20reality%20through%
20innovative%20solutions.pdf)
Marintek presentation to Cimac Circle, 26 May 2011
Meeting the Challenges of Power Generation on Offshore Heavy Oilfields, Michael Welch & Simon
Larsson, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery – World Heavy Oil Congress 2014, New Orleans
Heavy Crude Oil as a Fuel for the SGT-500 Gas Turbine, Per Johannson & Anders Larsson, Siemens
Industrial Turbomachinery AB – World Heavy Oil Congress 2012, Aberdeen