IBP2162_16

ASSESSMENT OF CARBON CAPTURE AND

COMBINED CYCLE INTEGRATION WITH A
MARITIME CO2 INJECTION COMPRESSION SYSTEM
Hamilton Y. Ortiz1, Waldyr L.R. Gallo2, Victor L. Acevedo3

Copyright 2016, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oi & Gas Expo and Conference 2016, held between October, 24-27,
2016, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to
the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the
submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’
opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas
Expo and Conference 2016 Proceedings.

Abstract
In offshore platforms, the power is generated on-site by gas turbines operating in simple cycle. Exhaust gases
are released to the atmosphere, either directly or after recovering some of the heat for process purposes. There is an
obvious possibility to recover heat for power generation from the exhaust gases. In onshore applications, multi-pressure
bottoming cycles are considered state of the art. However, this technology is as bulky as heavy, so not suitable for
marine applications and only a few maritime facilities include steam bottoming cycles. The introduction of taxes on
CO2 emitted in offshore activities implemented since the decade of the 90, generated an increase in the interests of
energy saving and in the possibility of separate and capture CO2 from exhaust gases. In this paper, it was studied an
alternative to improve the energy efficiency of the compression trains, allowing as well to meet other objectives as CO2
emission reduction, efficient use of infrastructure and additional power generation. It consists in the integration of a
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) unit and a steam bottoming cycle, with the main generation unit, and the
compression trains of the CO2-rich stream in a Brazilian platform. A flowsheet model were developed for three cases,
considering first the gas turbines with CCS, and after that, with the combined cycle too.

1. Introduction
The Oil & Gas exploration and production is an energy intensive sector, responsible of important Greenhouse
Gases (GHG) emissions. Activities such as generation of electric power on-site in open cycle configuration, excess-gas
firing in flares, cooling and heating of thermal exchange fluids, could be optimized to improve energy efficiency and
mitigate the GHG emissions. The Brazilian Pre-Salt scenario requires overcoming the important challenge of handle
high concentrations of CO2 associated in the well fluid to achieve the gas specifications for usage or exportation.
Process plant information of a planned FPSO project was used in the present paper to assess the energy and exergy
performance.
Exergy analysis is a well-used methodology to assess complex systems involving heat, power and other energy
interactions simultaneously, because it allows to study the actual thermodynamic potential of material streams (Aljundi
2009; Rosen 2001). Many researchers had used exergy as an analysis tool for offshore platforms. For example, Oliveira
Jr. e Van Hombeeck (1997) presents the exergy analysis the petroleum separation process of a typical Brazilian
offshore platform, Voldsund et al. (2013) explore the applicability of exergy analysis as an evaluation and monitoring
tool for the oil and gas processing on an offshore platform. Van Nguyen et al. (2013) discuss about the most
thermodynamically inefficient processes that are identified by performing an exergy analysis in conventional North Sea
oil and gas facilities, including the following operations: crude oil separation, gas compression and purification.
Exist several technologies for CO2 separation as well as sequestration alternatives and configurations
(Kuramochi et al. 2012; Kvamsdal, Jordal, and Bolland 2007). Those systems also need to be suitable to maritime
operation in floating production, storage and offloading platforms (FPSO).
For its part, there are several fluids and configurations avoidable for bottoming cycles. The exhaust gas
temperature is approximately 530°C, high enough for using a steam-based Rankine cycle. Other options as Organic
Rankine Cycles (ORC), Kalina, Supercritical CO2, are interesting alternatives, however, more useful in lower

______________________________
1
Master, Mechanical Engineer – State University of Campinas
2
Ph.D., Professor – State University of Campinas
3
Master, Energy Engineer – State University of Campinas
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

temperature levels (Pierobon et al. 2014; Veloso 2015; Walnum et al. 2013). It was investigated the implementation of
combined cycle in offshore platforms, distinguishing Norwegian installations where exhaust gases are conducted to
steam generators of once-thru type and usually with multiple inlets (two and three) (Nord and Bolland 2012; Nord,
Martelli, and Bolland 2014). Steam turbines of just one pressure level were identified as the optimal solution based in
weight-to-power ratio.
In this work, a steam cycle was implemented in two of the gas turbines within the general simulation, located
upstream of the cogeneration heat exchangers, and analyzed for the same three operational cases. This paper also aims
to assess the implementation of a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) unit attached to the main generation gas turbines,
a bottoming cycle and its integration with the planned CO2 separation and compression trains.

2. Technical specification
This study deal with a general design of FPSO proposed for the pre-salt oil characteristics. These oil reservoirs
have as main feature the production of associated gas with high levels of CO2, which needs to be removed with
processes included in the FPSO topside. The simplified scheme of the processing plant is described in Figure 1, with
the respective stream flows treated in the processes. The main features of each subsystem are detailed below.

Fuel gas

6
Assist Gas - Flare

4 5 7

Recovered gas

By-pass

Production Oil
Production wells Separation
manifold 1 2 treatment Fuel gas
3 8 exportation

Produced water
Sea water
treatment

Gas Injection

9
CO2 Injection
10
Other loads Oil storage

Water Injection
Main Generation Units
Overboard

Oil 1. Production manifold 6. Dew Point Control System

Gas 2. Separation and Oil treatment 7. CO2 Removal Unit
CO2 3. Vapor Recovery Unit (VRU) 8. Gas Exportation Compression
Water 4. Main Compression Unit 9. CO2 Compression Unit
Electric Power 5. Gas Dehydration Unit 10. Gas Injection Compression

Figure 1. Simplified flowsheet of FPSO processes.

1. Production Manifold: the fluids coming from the reservoir by the production wells are directed to the
production manifold at different pressure levels. A system of valves delivers the fluids to the separation unit.
2. Separation and oil treatment: this system separates the oil from gas and water by gravity, and various
dehydration and heating stages.
3. Vapor Recovery Unit: compression system that collect the high and low pressure gases from oil dehydrators
and pre-dehydrators, as well as the gas from the test separator. The goal of this process is to use the recovered
gas in the next gas treatment stages and avoid GHG venting. It is compound of one screw compressor of two
intercooled stages and is driven by a 2 MW electric motor.
4. Main Compression Unit: It consists of three parallel compressor trains to accommodate the gas flow. 11 MW
induction motors drive each compression train through variable speed drives.

2
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

5. Gas dehydration Unit: molecular sieves are adopted to remove the water present in the produced gas. The
equipment contains zeolites, a porous material that adsorbs water from the gas and desorbs the humidity at
high temperatures. The intention is to prevent the formation of solid hydrates in pipelines.
6. Dew point Control System: the gas is cooled to 10°C to remove hydrocarbon condensates that may affect the
gas transportation by pipelines for export.
7. CO2 Removal Unit: selective membranes separate the CO2 from natural gas, and the resulting gas must be
according to the specifications of exportation gas (maximum 3% CO2 in molar base). The CO2 rich stream is
directed to injection in the oil field. In some operating conditions of the FPSO, this process can be turned off.
8. Gas Exportation Compression: this unit compresses the gas to the pressure required for gas exportation by
pipeline. This process consists of two compressor trains with two stages each, driven by 11 MW induction
motors.
9. CO2 Compression Unit: The CO2 rich stream coming from the CO2 removal unit has a low pressure. This
compression unit must provide a discharge pressure of 25 MPa and is comprised by two parallel compression
trains with four stages each. Each compression train is powered by an 18 MW gas turbine.
10. Gas injection Compression: Finally, the produced gas is injected into the reservoir through two compressor
trains, with two stages each, to reach 55 MPa. This discharge pressure can be adjusted according to the CO2
content in the gas. 11 MW induction motors drive each compression train.

2.1. Main Generation Unit

Electricity is generated in the FPSO by a set of four 30 MW gas turbines, one of which is kept as stand-by.
They use the fuel gas produced in the platform for most of the time, but can also be fed by imported gas, and must
provide energy for the case of maximum electrical and thermal demand on the platform. One or more turbines may be
disabled depending on the electric loads driven during operation, so that the remaining turbines in operation share the
load equally, at the same load factor.
The gas turbines considered by the FPSO operation are the General Electric model LM2500+ (Table 1). Each
gas turbine operates in cogeneration mode, which means that there is a heat exchanger at the bottom of every gas
turbine. This equipment set must supply all the necessary heat (thermal demand – pressurized hot water) to the
processing plant.

Table 1. Gas turbines main specifications.

Nominal ISO Specifications GE LM2500+PV GE LM2000

Speed 6100 rpm 3600 rpm
Pressure Ratio 21.5 15.6
Exhaust Temperature 500°C 492°C
Air Flow 83 kg/s 61 kg/s
Nominal Power 30340 kW 17604 kW
Efficiency (LHV) 39.9 % 35.1%

2.1. CO2 compression unit

The studied CO2 compression unit input gas stream comes from a CO2 removal unit (by membranes) to be
compressed in two identical trains operating at 2x50% loading rate. The unit is fully described in Ortiz & Gallo (2015).
The prime movers of these units are two gas turbines LM2000 mechanically attached to the multistage booster
compressors and two 11MW electric motors for the main injection compressors.

3. Methodology
The methodology used was based on the mass, energy and exergy balances for each equipment, subsystem and
for the process as a whole. First, it was determined the fuel gas consumption of the prime movers, therefore the
efficiencies of the compression and generation trains, and finally the irreversibilities and exergy efficiencies. The main
objective of this analysis is to pinpoint the losses in the process and identify opportunities to minimize them.
It was necessary to identify and calculate the thermodynamic properties of all material streams (liquid or gas flows).
Energy inputs and outputs (electrical or shaft power) were calculated too. The Exergy analysis is a suitable tool for the
assessment of ways to make a better use of available energy. It indicates a clear distinction between energy losses to the

3
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

environment (which, in principle, can be recovered) and internal irreversibility in the process (which cannot be avoided
easily).
In this work, the main events analyzed are the Maximum Oil and Gas (Max O&G), 50% BSW (Basic sediment
and water) and Max. H2O/CO2, described below.
- Case 1: Maximum oil and gas production stage, where the platform produces and treats oil and gas near its
maximum capacity. The high amount of gas moved by the treatment process involves high-energy
consumption in main compression, exportation and injection units.
- Case 2: 50% BSW. The main feature is the partial load operation of the equipment related to the gas treatment,
particularly compressors and heat exchangers, as well as handling of large quantities of produced water.
- Case 3: Maximum water and CO2, refers to the final stages of oil and gas production on the platform, with
high CO2 content in the associated gas because of prior CO2 injection into the reservoir (Enhanced Oil
Recovery). Similarly, high quantities of water are produced due to earlier-stage injection. This condition is
characterized by low production of gas with CO2 concentrations that can reach 60% per volume.
Power and thermal systems were modelled first in Thermoflex® to determine the fuel consumption, exhaust
gas temperature and compositions, and energy efficiency. The whole processing and utilities plants were modelled after
in Aspen Hysys®, for complete properties calculation. The CCS technology simulated was a Monoethanolamine (MEA)
package, with a capture efficiency of 85%. It was installed downstream of the cogeneration heat exchangers, then it was
necessary to simulate a compression stage which raise the pressure from the atmospheric level to 4 bar, that is the
suction pressure of the associated CO2 booster compressor commented before. The chemical absorption unit was
modelled using the thermodynamic package Acid Gas (Song and Chen 2009; Zhang et al. 2009).
A methodology for part load performance of turbines, compressors, pumps and heat exchangers were
investigated and implemented within the simulation (Dias and Gallo 2015; Incropera et al. 2011; Stephenson 2011).
Figure 2 shows a caption of the simulation developed in Thermoflex for two generation units, attached to the combined
cycle and the CCS unit.

Figure 2. Flowsheet simulation example, main generation sets with CCS and Combined Cycle. Thermoflex.

5. Results
The exergy analysis results of the CO2 compression permitted to conclude that exergy is destroyed in gas
recirculation for anti-surge control because of the part-load behavior. It means, a fraction of the power supplied to the
compressors is actually used to avoid instable operation of the compressors and the recirculation stream is continuously
compressed and expanded to meet the suction pressure and keep the machine in the operation envelope. In the case of
the multistage compressor, it was identified that in the early years of production, is not necessary the recirculation, but,
for cases 2 and 3, the third and fourth stages need recirculation. For the main injection compressor, it was pointed out
that requires recirculation in the whole lifetime, due to the high molecular weight of the CO2-rich gas stream.

4
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

It is also remarkable the huge exergy destruction in the combustion processes and the spontaneous liberation
of high-temperature gases. When is analyzed the booster compression process, for example, the sum of all the internal
and external irreversibilities of the gas turbines accounts for 74 to 79% of the whole irreversibilities of that subsystem.

Figure 3. Grassman diagram for two gen-sets with cogeneration, Case 2.

Figure 4. Grassman diagram for two gen-sets, cogeneration, bottoming cycle and CCS, Case 2.
5
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

Figures 3 and 4 shows the difference between the usage of the fuel thermodynamic potential in the cases with
and without combined cycle and CCS. It was represented the air compressor (TC-C), combustion chamber (TC-CC)
and expander (TC-T) as separated equipment. The so-called HX represent the waste heat recovery unit actually planned
to water heating service.
The grey arrows drawn upwards shows the irreversibilities in each equipment, in real exergy scale. With the
Grassmann representation, it is easy to conclude that the exhaust gases released to atmosphere, in the planed
configuration carries 13,533MW and for the proposed configuration (with combined cycle and CCS) reduces to
3,48MW.
In Figure 4, the new proposed configuration, the bottoming cycle causes an important reduction in the
irreversibilities, that is, an efficiency improvement, additional to the increase in power availability with the same fuel
input. Steam required in the CCS unit was studied as utility.
The auxiliary power and heat demands of the CCS systems, cause an energy efficiency reduction of 6,5 to 8%
of the efficiency without capture, which values were between 34,5 and 30,7%. The emission of equivalent CO2 in this
new configuration, after the integration is one order of magnitude lower (decreasing from 200 to 15 ktCO2/year
approximately). Even with the efficiency penalty, the carbon capture have been implemented in the last two decades
because of the taxing policies, which are spreading worldwide. Novel technologies of carbon capture have been
proposed and tested in this period, some of them affordable to the offshore environment. However, pre-combustion and
oxy-fuel based technologies have issues for its implementation, due to the need of modify the gas turbine internals (Suri
2007; Wang et al. 2011). Previous studies about CCS with the same gas turbine and evaluating different configurations
and technologies were evaluated (Bolland and Bjerve 1994).

65.000 65,00
60.000 60,00
15357
55.000 55,00
50.000 50,00
45.000 12997 45,00
42,98 12369
40.000 40,28 40,00
39,27

Efficiency [%]
Power [kW]

35.000 35,00
34,47
30.000 31,78 30,71 30,00
25.000 25,00
45176
20.000 20,00
34949
15.000 31882 15,00
10.000 10,00
5.000 5,00
0 0,00
-4675 -4083 -3911
-5.000 -5,00
-10.000 -10,00
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Gas turbine (2) power Steam turbine (1) power Gas cycle auxiliary
Stea cycle auxiliary CCS auxiliary Combined cycle efficiency
Open cycle efficiency

Figure 5. Power and efficiency of the main generation unit, in open and combined cycle, with CCS integrated.

It is identified as main result the energy efficiency gain of 25% in relation to the open cycle efficiency because
of the power generated in the steam bottoming cycle. The power value shown in the green bars appertain to the original
process power demand for these two turbines. The orange bar correspond to the power generated by the steam turbine.
This power could be used, for example, to replace of a gas-based prime mover, to exportation or supplying power for
nearby platforms. It is possible to identify also, in blue bars, the power consumption of the auxiliaries in steam cycle,
gas cycle and CCS unit. The amount of efficiency “shortened” for the implementation of CCS is “recovered” with the
combined cycle.
6
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

Additional power generation of 15,3, 12,9 and 12,3 MW for the cases 1 to 3 respectively were obtained. The
overall energy efficiency reaches 43, 40,2 and 39,3%, an increase of almost 25%.
It was simulated on Aspen Hysys the integration of the proposed systems with the CO2 injection compressor
trains, already available in the FPSO, such that they are part of sequestration system. The CO2-rich stream captured,
displayed on the Grassmann diagram with an exergy of 2139 kW, even when it seems small, eliminates the need of
recycle in the third stage of booster compression and reduces the recirculation of the fourth stage and in the main
injection compressor. It was studied the effect on the efficiency of the compressors, and it increases in 2.2% for the
case 2, and 1% for case 3, demonstrating that compressors would have a better part-load performance in the later years
of production.
A simplified flow diagram is shown in Figure 6, noting that the exhaust gases from the main generation are
used in the combined cycle, pass through the MEA Capture system, wherein the captured CO2-rich stream is mixed
with the CO2-rich stream produced. The share of "clean" gas separated in the MEA package is released into the
atmosphere.

Fuel gas

3 4 5

Production Production Main

Oil treatment
wells Manifold Separation 1
Gas
6 exportation

Produced water
Sea water
treatment

Gen-sets Gas injection

7
CO2 injection
8

Other loads Oil exportation

Water injection
Combined
cycle MEA CO2 Capture Unit
1. Separation
HRSG 2. Vapour recovery
3. Main gas compression
4. Dehydration and Dew
EXHAUST

Oil Point adjustment

Gas 5. CO2 removal unit
CO2 6. Exportation
Water compression
Electric 7. CO2 compression
power 8. Injection compression

Figure 6. Simplified flowsheet of the proposed integration

According to the consulted literature, one of the main inconveniences for implementing CCS is investment in
compression equipment to bring the captured gas from the discharge pressure in the stripper up to the reservoir
pressure. In the case of FPSO platforms studied, this system already exists and its CAPEX is loaded to the platform
operation with or without CCS. Moreover, as demonstrated in the compression system energy balances and produced
CO2 injection, the system load percentage drops dramatically after reaching the maximum of oil and gas production,
what happens in the first ten years. Soon after, the compression equipment would be with a very high idle load
installed.

6. Conclusion
Once simulated the new configuration with combined cycle and CCS, it was demonstrated that the captured
CO2, when mixed with the associated CO2-rich stream, improves the part load performance of the booster and injection
compressors, eliminating the need of anti-surge recirculation in some specific cases. The fact of using the high
7
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

temperature gases in a higher-grade transformation, as superheated steam generation, in addition to generate electricity
reduces the irreversibilities of cogeneration. That is, getting a better use of the infrastructure, an increase of energy
efficiency and an important emissions abatement.
The main result of the simulation is the improvement in efficiency (almost 25% higher in relation with the
open cycle) and the additional power available (between 12,3 to 15,3 MW), considering two gas turbines attached to
one steam generator and one steam turbine. The emission of equivalent CO2 in this new configuration, after the
integration is one order of magnitude lower (decreasing from 200 to 15 ktCO2/year approximately).
The CCS unit and the bottoming cycle, both requires important footprint and its weight can affect the ship
stability. Space scarcity is a key factor for the implementation of a system and is clearly the main limitation of the
configuration proposed. A detailed sizing of the systems need to be matured for the specific Brazilian case. However,
exists the possibility of centralize the generation groups of nearby platforms in a unified “power island”. Some
developers and engineering companies has proposed alternatives in that matter in the last years, even with CCS and
combined cycle, as proposed here.
There are some important differences between the available power island designs and the Brazilian case. One
of them is the availability of CO2 injection compressors operating in partial load in the most of the field lifetime. Also,
without a taxing policy, CCS is not economically viable. However, the political climate issues related to GHG
emissions are continuously getting worse, so, all effort in reducing GHG emissions is valuable.

7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge to BG E&P Brazil Ltda., for the financial support to the project
“BG20: Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction for petroleum maritime operations’, and for the granted MSc.
scholarships. This paper also has the financial cooperation of CNPq and CAPES Brazilian agencies.

8. References

Aljundi, Isam H. 2009. “Energy and Exergy Analysis of a Steam Power Plant in Jordan.” Applied Thermal Engineering
29(2-3):324–28. Retrieved (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.02.029).

Bolland, Olav and Yngvil Bjerve. 1994. “Assessment of Power Generation Concepts on Oil Platforms in Conjunction
With CO2 Removal.” in International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Dias, Rodrigo and Waldyr Luiz Ribeiro Gallo. 2015. “Exergetic and Thermoeconomic Analysis of a Cogeneration
Plant on a Brazilian Pre-Salt Oil Offshore Platform.” in 23th ABCM International Congress of Mechanical
Engineering. Rio de Janeiro.

Incropera, Frank P., Theodore L. Bergman, Adrienne S. Lavine, and David P. Dewitt. 2011. Fundamentos de
Transferência de Calor E de Massa. 7th ed. Rio de Janeiro: LTC Ltda.

Kuramochi, Takeshi, Andrea Ramírez, Wim Turkenburg, and André Faaij. 2012. “Comparative Assessment of CO2
Capture Technologies for Carbon-Intensive Industrial Processes.” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
38(1):87–112.

Kvamsdal, Hanne M., Kristin Jordal, and Olav Bolland. 2007. “A Quantitative Comparison of Gas Turbine Cycles with
CO2 Capture.” Energy 32(1):10–24. Retrieved April 13, 2015
(http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S036054420600048X).

Nguyen, Tuong-Van et al. 2013. “Exergetic Assessment of Energy Systems on North Sea Oil and Gas Platforms.”
Energy 62:23–36. Retrieved March 17, 2015
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213001874).

Nord, Lars and Olav Bolland. 2012. “Steam Bottoming Cycles Offshore - Challenges and Possibilities.” Journal of
Power Technologies 92(3):201–7. Retrieved (http://papers.itc.pw.edu.pl/index.php/JPT/article/view/346).

Nord, Lars O., Emanuele Martelli, and Olav Bolland. 2014. “Weight and Power Optimization of Steam Bottoming
Cycle for Offshore Oil and Gas Installations.” Energy 76:891–98. Retrieved November 11, 2015
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421401055X).

8
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2016

De Oliveira, Silvio and Marco Van Hombeeck. 1997. “Exergy Analysis of Petroleum Separation Processes in Offshore
Platforms.” Energy Conversion and Management 38(15-17):1577–84. Retrieved September 23, 2015
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890496002191).

Ortiz Cuchivague, Hamilton Yair and Waldyr Luiz Ribeiro Gallo. 2015. “First and Second Law Analysis of CO2
Offshore Compression System.” in 23rd ABCM International Congress of Mechanical Engineering. Rio de
Janeiro.

Pierobon, L., A. Benato, E. Scolari, F. Haglind, and A. Stoppato. 2014. “Waste Heat Recovery Technologies for
Offshore Platforms.” Applied Energy 136:228–41.

Rosen, Marc A. 2001. “Energy- and Exergy-Based Comparison of Coal-Fired and Nuclear Steam Power Plants.”
Exergy, An International Journal 1(3):180–92.

Song, Yuhua and Chau-chyun Chen. 2009. “Symmetric Nonrandom Two-Liquid Segment Activity Coefficient Model
for Electrolytes.” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 5522–29.

Stephenson, Grant. 2011. “Integrate Compressor Performance Maps into Process Simulation.” Chemical Engineering
Progress 107(6):42–47.

Suri, Rajat. 2007. “CO 2 Compression for Capture-Enabled Power Systems.”

Veloso, Thiago Gotelip Correa. 2015. “Otimização Da Implantação de Sistemas ORC Em Uma FPSO Brasileira.”
Universidade Federal de Itajubá.

Voldsund, Mari, Ivar Ståle Ertesvåg, Wei He, and Signe Kjelstrup. 2013. “Exergy Analysis of the Oil and Gas
Processing on a North Sea Oil Platform a Real Production Day.” Energy 55:716–27. Retrieved May 26, 2015
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213001527).

Walnum, Harald Taxt, Petter Nekså, Lars O. Nord, and Trond Andresen. 2013. “Modelling and Simulation of CO2
(carbon Dioxide) Bottoming Cycles for Offshore Oil and Gas Installations at Design and off-Design Conditions.”
Energy 59:513–20. Retrieved March 17, 2015
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213005719).

Wang, M., A. Lawal, P. Stephenson, J. Sidders, and C. Ramshaw. 2011. “Post-Combustion CO2 Capture with
Chemical Absorption: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89(9):1609–24.
Retrieved May 13, 2015 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263876210003345).

Zhang, Ying et al. 2009. “Rate-Based Process Modeling Study of CO2 Capture with Aqueous Monoethanolamine
Solution.” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 48(20):9233–46.