OTC-25051-MS

Optimising Energy Footprint for Offshore CO2 Separation, Transportation

and Storage
Mohd Noh, M.G. *; Hor, W.V; Jalani, M.Y.J and Mas’od, M.A. , PETRONAS

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25–28 March 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract

This paper describes the experience of PETRONAS in sustainable development of a high CO2 gas field. The development
project which have a potential of storing 23MTPA of CO2 in a nearby offshore saline aquifer is energy intensive. The
operational cost of operating the high duty CO2 capture, transport and reinjection (or CCS) facilities has a negative impact on
the overall project economics. As such, optimizing the energy footprint of the CCS facilities is imminent. As a means to
achieve the desired duty reduction, the project have identified potential energy recovery from the high pressure well stream via
the adiabatic turboexpander gas expansion, deployment and integration of the liquid CO2 pumps as opposed to the
conventional higher duty compressor systems and utilizing low BTU gas turbine drivers to avoid the high duty fuel gas
separation penalty. The aggregate duty reductions achieved has met the initial project expectation. However, the deployment
of these technology is rather new for offshore service and a proper technology qualification exercise is a necessity.

Keywords : CCS, CO2 transport, CO2 pumping, turboexpander, low BTU

*Corresponding author : +603-89281573

Email address : mghadaffi_mnor@petronas.com.my

Introduction

Carbon Capture and Storage ( CCS) is a key technology to reduce carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere. Demonstration
CCS projects are implemented to understand various aspects of the technology which have pivotal impact on the health and
safety (HSE) issue as well as economic feasibility of a CCS project[1]. Hydrocarbon reservoir development with a significant
content of CO2 may cause large green house gas (GHG) emissions which may impact the overall sustainability and green
rating of the hydrocarbon development project as a whole. As such CCS is a necessity for projects development which
potentially having hydrocarbon reserves with high CO2 content to maintain its sustainability rating[2]. However
implementation of CCS have a negative impact on project economics and must be implemented with caution. CCS may have
impact on the project economics through the extensive infrastructure requirements necessary to separate, capture, transport and
reinjection of the CO2 and GHG stream back into the identified geological storage site. The energy required to separate,
capture, transport and re-inject these cocktail of CO2 and other GHG stream is usually massive and have direct impact on the
net hydrocarbon (HC) sales. The energy requirement for cooling, compression and pumping for the CO2 dominant stream are
generated via gas turbine drivers which emits large amount of CO2 themselves during its combustion process. As such it is
imperative to optimise the energy footprint for such a CCS system to ensure the economic feasibility of a hydrocarbon
development project.

1. Comparative Review of some CCS projects Energy Footprint

There are several large scale CCS demonstration and actual commercial projects implemented at various parts of the globe.
Among a few are the KinderMorgan CO2 flooding project, GORGON CO2 re-injecton project, Sleipner re-injection and the
2 OTC-25051-MS

Lacq-Rousse CCS demonstration project. The details pertaining to each of the CCS projects are summarised in Table 1 below.

Projects Status CO2 Reinjection Equipment

Rate
• 3 stage reciprocating 1MW CO2 compressor ( 1 to
Lacq-Rousse Industrial Operational 25kTPA CO2 27bar)
CCS reference project for 2.5 years • 1 stage reciprocating 0.33MW CO2 compressor ( 27
to 51 bar)
Sleipner CO2 Injection Operational Average • 4 stage centrifugal 13MW CO2 compressor ( 1 bar to
14 years 0.85MTPA CO2 66 bar )
Gorgon CO2 Injection Operational 3.4 to 4MTPA • 6x 4 stage dual casing centrifugal 13MW CO2
2014 CO2 compressor ( 1.78 bar to 184 bar )
KinderMorgan CO2 Operational 900MMscfd or • CO2 re-compression concept utilizing reciprocating
Flooding since 1973 20MTPA CO2 compressors and CO2 pump at several recompression
station on-shore with total power of 300MW

The Lacq-Rousse CCS was successful in demonstrating the technical feasibility of integrating technology within the capture,
transportation and injection of CO2 stream into depleted onshore gas reservoir with a total of 45kT injected throughout the
30months of operational period[3]. The Sleipner CO2 injection project has to date successfully injected some 14MT of CO2
into the Utsira storage site offshore Norway [4] with a total designed maximum injection of 17MT of CO2. The GORGON
project which plans to reinject at total 120MT of CO2 throughout its 40 years of design life is planned to commence operation
in 2014[5] The most successful CO2 injection facility is located onshore within the Permian Basin in the North America
continent injecting some 20MTPA of CO2 for ehhanced oil recovery EOR projects [6].

2. Project Background

The developmental project is gas field development with a high content of CO2 of approximately 70%, 25% methane CH4,
nitrogen N2 and some condensates. Due to the nature of its ultra high CO2 content, a typical membrane separation system is
not deployed here due to inefficiency in the form of hydrocarbon losses. Instead, a hybrid phase separation system is proposed
to manage a separation of CO2 from a high of 70% right down to a final composition of 6.5% molar content to adhere to the
sales gas specification[3]. The annual rate of CO2 planned for reinjection at the identified geological storage site is 23MTPA.

3.1 General Description of Major Process System

The well stream are initially conditioned and pretreated before entering the CO2 separation modules. At the pretreatment unit,
gas condensates, mercury and water are removed. Water are removed and polished to a level tolerated by the phase separation
modules which are in the range of 10ppm to 100 ppm depending on the final selection of the hybrid phase separation modules
deployed. The water removal down to these levels are achieved via adsorbent technology.

Having water removed to a not more than 100ppm level, the inlet stream are cooled to a temperature of approximately lower
than -50C as at the inlet of the phase separation system. The ultra low temperature requirement for a high flow rate of
2000MMscfd are to be achieved via a massive cryogenic refrigeration train. These cryogenic refrigeration train are driven a set
of high duty powered compressor trains which is equivalent to the ones installed in an onshore LNG plant.

There are two AGRS technology schemes put into consideration, namely acid gas removal system AGRS1 and AGRS 2.
These cooled well stream enter the inlet at the AGRS module at approximately 80bar and -51°C for the AGRS 1 case and for
AGRS 2 case at -10°C and 45bar pressure. Here, the phase separation of methane CH4 and carbon dioxide CO2 occurs via a
patented novel AGRS technology. At the primary outlet, the retentate gas which dominantly consists of CH4 ( >75%) are
exported as sales gas while the secondary outlet of CO2 rich stream (byproduct) will be 95% CO2 in liquid form. These
AGRS modules are installed in two separate but identical process train in separate central processing platforms CPP.

The liquid CO2 stream will be passed on to the CO2 compression, transport and reinjection platform where further
compression and pumping will occur. The overall flow of reinjection stream is approximated to be around 1400MMscfd. Here,
the liquid CO2 from the AGRS off-take are compressed to supercritical pressure or dense phase via a train of CO2 compressor
or CO2 pumps. On the CPP, the dense fluid and/or liquid CO2 stream from the AGRS modules are being pumped to a
specified pressure in order to guarantee CO2 arrival pressure at WHPIs meeting the required re-injection pressure at wellhead.
Transportation of these CO2 at dense phase from the AGRS modules to four (4) satellite injection wellhead platforms
OTC-25051-MS 3

(WHPIs) located within 4 to 6 km radius away via subsea pipelines [4]. The development schematics and process flow
diagram PFD[4][5] are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Development schematics and Process Flow Diagram PFD

3.2 Design Consideration to Optimise Energy Footprint

Energy footprint for a hydrocarbon development project with a CCS requirement may be reduced by several methods. In this
project, several key strategies was identified[6] into reducing the energy footprint of the overall process train among which :-

a) Deployment of a Turbo Expander to recover potential energy from high pressure well stream
b) Integration of a CO2 Pump to succeed the CO2 Compressor for the CO2 reinjection train
c) Utilising Low BTU Gas Turbine GT Driver to minimise consumption of processed export fuel gas

The initial target during the conceptual design was to reduce the energy footprint by at least 3% from the initial baseline or
approximately 30MW duty[7] .

3.3 Deployment of a Turbo Expander to recover potential energy from high pressure well stream

A turboexpander is a mechanical equipment designed to recover kinetic energy from the expansion of a process gas instead of
direct adiabatic expansion through a Joules-Thompson (JT) valve. Turboexpanders are also known as expansion turbines, or in
essence are centrifugal compressors run backwards. An ideal thermodynamically reversible turboexpander is isentropic.
Turboexpanders extract work from a stream by converting the pressure energy from gas or vapor stream into mechanical work
as the gas or vapor expands through the turbine, at the same time providing a maximum amount of heat removal from the
system from the given pressure drop. The work can be used to drive compressors or electrical generators. In brief, energy
recovery for turboexpander comes in three forms:

a) Cooling duty provided by the expander

b) Electricity generation by the generator
c) Compression duty of the compressor

3.3.1 Process Simulation

The rate of energy recovery from a turboexpander unit is directly related to the pressure difference upstream and downstream
of its expander module. Hence, a turboexpander is installed in process nodes where there is a significant pressure gradient in
which a JT valve is usually installed. Process simulation done in-house suggest the energy recovery potential between 9MW to
18MW for a turboexpander generator configuration working on various differential working pressure from 60 bar to 90 bar
depending on the AGRS working pressure requirement[8].
4 OTC-25051-MS

Figure 2 : Electrical energy recovery (MW) potential versus the Working Pressure Differential (Bar) of a turboexpander
configuration with a flow rate of 550MMscfd

For this development project, several location was identified in the process scheme to take advantage of large differential
pressure let down requirements. The best differential pressure was found to be between the well head choke valve and the inlet
of the AGRS which is shown in figure 3 below.

Figure 3 : Process schematics for the potential installation of a turboexpander with large differential pressure let down

3.3.2 Equipment Proposal

Technical proposal from vendors were received for both of the design cases and is summarised in Table 2 below. The limit of
saturated water was in the range of 500ppm to ensure no water dropout occurs at the expander side where gas expansion may
cause temperature drop to a level which crosses the water saturation line. The energy recovery obtained from the vendors are
satisfactory with AGRS Case 1 with electrical output of between 13.8MW to 15MW while AGRS Case 2 with an electrical
OTC-25051-MS 5

output of between 26MW to 30MW depending of the specific vendor.

Table 2 : Turboexpander technical proposal for the AGRS 1 and AGRS 2 Cases.

Parameters Vendor A Vendor B Vendor C

Expander - Expander – Expander- Expander –
Configuration
Generator Compressor Generator Compressor
Working Flow 500 MMSCFD (x3) 1650 MMSCFD 550 MMSCFD (x3)

è Case AGRS 1 : (Outlet Pressure: 80 bar)

4.6 MW (x3) 5 MW (x3)
Output -under revision- 14 MW
= 13.8 MW = 15 MW
Model TG 2-200 EC 60 EG 80-1 EX-5.0
Approx. Size 8.8m x 8.2m x 4.1m 7.2m x 4m 15.2m x 3m
-NA-
(L x W x H) (x3) 32,600 kg 50,500 kg
è Case AGRS 2 : (Outlet Pressure: 45 bar)
8.68 MW (x3 10MW (x3
Output
= 26 MW) = 30MW)
Model TG 2-300 -NA- EX-6.0
Approx. Size 8.8m x 8.2m x 4.1m
-NA-
(L x W x H) (x3)
Other Parameters

H2O Limit < 100 ppm -NA- -NA-

Martensitic Stainless
Material Aluminum -NA-
Steel

However, during the optimisation process, the pretreatment vessel subscribed to ASME 600 Class which limits the maximum
allowable pressure in the pretreatment vessel to 80 bar or so which resulted in the well head choke valve reducing the well
head incoming pressure of 140 bar to a new set value of 80 bar. As a result of this exercise, the turboexpander solution was
only workable for the AGRS 2 option with a major reduction in potential power generated by the turboexpander modules. The
power generated had been significantly reduced from 26MW down to 9MW for the AGRS 2 option. The final turboexpander
configuration and the final energy recovery are respectively shown in Figure 4 and Table 3 below.

Figure 4 : The final turboexpander configuration for the AGRS 2 scheme.

6 OTC-25051-MS

Table 3: Final Energy Recovery for the AGRS1 and AGRS 2 scheme.

Pressure (bar) Temperature (ᵒC) Power Output (MW)

(based on average
Case
output from conceptual
In Out In Out solutions)

1 (Part I) 140 80 50 13 14

1 (Part II) 80 80 - - (not applicable)

2 (Part I) 140 45 50 -10 26

2 (Part II) 80 62 50 31 9

3.4 Deployment of a CO2 Pump to service the liquid nature of CO2 offtake from the AGRS modules.

Several studies have been conducted to show the difference in energy consumption between pumping CO2 and the
conventional CO2 compression approach. Based on a research by Moore et al[10] from the Southwest Research Institute, a
solution that involves a combination of both compressor and pump have proven to be significantly less energy-consuming than
a conventional centrifugal compressor of multiple stages alone. The solution consist of compressing the CO2 to a certain
pressure, and cooled until the CO2 is liquefied whereby a CO2 pump will be used to transport the liquefied CO2. The
reduction of energy consumption was calculated to around 30% compared to the conventional method.

The deployment of a liquid CO2 pump is desired to take advantage of the liquid phase CO2 available at the outlet of the
AGRS modules. A liquid pump may directly service these liquid CO2 offtake streams provided the CO2 vapour fractions are
kept within the limit of the minimum NPSH required. A gaseous CO2 compressor however require the liquid CO2 fractions to
be heated under isobaric conditions to the gaseous phase.

3.4.1 Process Simulation

Process simulation study was conducted via in-house simulation package iCON based on the AGRS 1 and AGRS 2 scheme.
A comparison of driver duty is obtained between the all compressor cases and all pump cases. Simulation findings suggests
that the driver duty required by the pump is almost 4 times lesser than a compressor in support of the claim that the usage of
pumps could be most efficient and cost-effective than compressors in terms of energy footprint reduction. Figure 5 shows the
process schematics for the CO2 pumps and compressors configuration for the AGRS 1 scheme while Table 4 below shows the
results of the simulation analysis.

Figure 5 : CO2 Pump and Compressor Configuration

OTC-25051-MS 7

Table 4 – Comparative Duty between CO2 pump and compressor for the AGRS 1 and AGRS 2 case study

Heating / Driver Duty,

AGRS 1 Cooling Duty,
MW MW
All Pump Case 17.2 10.9
All Compressor case 154.2 40.8

Heating / Driver Duty,

AGRS 2 Cooling Duty,
MW MW
20% CO2 top product – All Pump Case 4.7 6.6
20% CO2 top product -- All Compressor Case 122.0 31.6
30% CO2 top product -- All Pump Case 4.2 6.0
30% CO2 top product -- All Compressor Case 107.7 28.0
40% CO2 top product -- All Pump Case 3.3 4.8
40% CO2 top product -- All Compressor Case 86.1 22.4

3.4.2 Equipment Proposal

Technical proposal from vendors were received for both of the design cases[11] and is summarised in Table 5 below. The
Vendor 1 incorporated the CO2 liquid pump solution as part of the equipment solution for the CO2 transport and reinjection
package while Vendor 2 was requested to propose an equipment solution with only the gaseous CO2 compressors. Differences
in the overall power duty would correspond to the type of equipment whereby P1.1, P1.2 for the AGRS 1 case study and P2.1
for the AGRS 2 case study are specified by the vendors.

Table 5 : Comparative energy duty between the all compressor case and with the case with the incorporation of the liquid CO2
pump

Power Consumption (MW)

Case Equipment
Vendor 1 Vendor 2
C1.1 29.8 (x1) 15.7 (x2)
C1.2 37.0 (x1) 19.8 (x2)
H1
C1.3 44.2 (x1) 23.5 (x2)
C1.4 36.0 (x1) 18.3 (x2)
8 OTC-25051-MS

P1.1 1.057 (x4) 19.7 (x5)*

P1.2 5.32 (x4) 20.1 (x5)*
Total Power 172.5 353.6
C2.1 5.0 (x1) 5.1 (x1)
C2.2 84.3 (x1) 20 (x5)
C2.3 7.7 (x1) 8 (x1)
H2 P2.1 0.21 (x1) 3.3 (x1)*
P2.2 2.56 (x1) 6.9 (x1)*
P2.3 3.33 (x1) 10.6 (x1)*
Total Power 103.1 133.9

Corresponding to the AGRS1 case, the all compressor solution was quoted to have an overall duty of 354MW while by
incorporating the liquid CO2 pump, the duty was suggestively reduced to 173MW which is more than a 50% duty reduction.

The AGRS 2 case was also suggested to have a duty reduction upon incorporating a liquid CO2 pump into the overall solution.
The smaller duty saving of around 30% was due to the fact that the overall potential compression duty replaceable by the CO2
liquid pump was somewhat smaller in the range of 15% for the AGRS 2 case compared to the 66% for the AGRS 1 case.

3.5 Deployment of a low BTU gas turbine driver to reduce the energy penalty for the fuel gas consumption

Development of ultra high CO2 fields which require the phase separation type AGRS modules to separate CO2 from
hydrocarbon molecules is energy intensive; and with the future requirement of zero CO2 venting, CCS technology may need
to incorporated in the project design basis will further add up to the energy footprint for the development of such fields.
Energy to operate the AGRS modules and to transport and re-inject the CO2 stream into the storage reservoir will be generated
by the gas turbines which in turn, consumes large amounts of fuel gas. Consumption of these fuel gas which are generated
from the AGRS modules have very high separation energy penalty.

3.5.1 Process Simulation

In house simulation and conceptual engineering study suggest a separation energy penalty of between 0.5 to 0.17
MW/MMBTU[12]. Most of the duty required for the AGRS modules are to cool down incoming well stream to ultra low
temperature which requires the installation of refrigeration train similar to the scale of a conventional liquefied natural gas
LNG plant. The lower 0.17MW/MMBTU is based on the optimised heat integration scheme and is taken to be the final figure
of the energy penalty.

Detail calculation suggest that for an initial fuel gas consumption of around 300MMscfd with a lower heating value LHV of
800btu/scf, a scheme of a “sales-gas-quality” fuel gas re-blending with the high CO2 raw gas ( LHV of 319btu/scf) will result
in a low BTU fuel gas in the range of 500btu/scf. This fuel gas re-blending scheme will result in the reduction of the
consumption of high valued sales gas from the earlier 300MMscfd to somewhere between 150 to 200MMscfd. This is
equivalent to a net saving of the sales gas consumption of between 50MMscfd to 150MMscfd or between 5.875MW to
17.625MW of duty reduction.

3.5.2 Equipment Proposal

Most of the gas turbine driver are specified to operate with a LHV value between the range of 800 – 1000 btu\scf based on pre-
qualified fuel line components. The state of the art gas turbine driver have been reported to work on low BTU fuel gas with a
lower heating value LHV of 520btu\scf. However, utilisation of fuel gas with LHV content as low as this may result in
combustion flame instability, thus requiring the constant monitoring of fuel gas composition by means of an online gas
chromatography to ensure continuity of the gas turbine operations.

3. Discussion

Optimisation of the energy footprint is possible by the implementation of several strategies as outlined in the earlier section.
The aggregate energy recovery from the deployment of the turboexpander, liquid CO2 pump and the low BTU gas turbine
drivers are summarised in table 6 below. Considering the initial baseline duty of 1000MW, the total duty reduction achieved
are significant ranging between 3.6% to 4.8% for the AGRS 1 scheme and between 18.6% to 19.8% for the AGRS 2 scheme.

Table 6 : Aggregate energy recovery from the deployment of the turboexpander, liquid CO2 pump and the low BTU gas
turbine drivers
OTC-25051-MS 9

Duty Reduction Achieved

Technology Deployed
AGRS 1 AGRS 2

Turboexpander 0 9 MW

Duty for all compressor case – Duty Duty for all compressor case – Duty
Liquid CO2 Pump for liquid CO2 pump case for liquid CO2 pump case
= 133 - 103 = 353 - 172
= 30 MW = 171 MW

Low BTU Gas Turbine 6 – 18MW 6 – 18MW

Agregate 36 ~ 48MW 186 ~ 198MW

However, the possibility of recovering the full potential of the proposed energy footprint reduction depends on the successful
deployment of these technology especially when it is planned for offshore deployment. Qualification of these technology
require the thorough understanding of the proposed process scheme, thermodynamics and phase behaviour of CO2 within the
process stream upstream and downstream of the turboexpander, liquid CO2 pump and low BTU gas turbine drivers.

The deployment of a turboexpander to service offshore high pressure well stream are oftenly limited by its own limitation of
only able to service clean gas as opposed to the multitude of molecules in different phase found in high pressure well stream
after the well head. Treated gas are usually of a significantly lower pressure limited by the pressure rating of the separator
vessel. We see in the case of the turboexpander where the initial 140bar of well stream pressure was choked to 80bar after the
well head to accommodate the separator vessel pressure rating reduced the total potential energy recovery of the turboexpander
from 26MW to only 9MW.

The deployment of the CO2 pump is susceptible to failure deriving from servicing liquid CO2 with a vapour fraction which
exceeds a value whereby the net pressure suction head NPSH is below a minimal that protects the CO2 pump from cavitation
induced by liquid impingement. Servicing liquid CO2 at ultra low temperature also provide process hazards pertaining to the
formation of solid CO2 and hydrate formation if the minimal water content is not met. In the event of not able to qualify the
service of the liquid CO2 pump to meet certain technology readiness level, the more reliable and proven CO2 compressor
technology would need to be deployed but with a massive energy penalty. As in the case of the low BTU gas turbine driver,
the development of the gas mixer nozzle and a full qualification of the fuel line accessories is a necessity to ensure any process
hazard are properly eliminated.

4. Conclusion

Development of hydrocarbon reserves with an ultra high CO2 content are energy intensive and involve a of large amount of
CO2 emissions deriving from the CO2 separation process and CO2 deriving from the combustion process of gas turbine
drivers. Sustainability for the kind of hydrocarbon field development rely on the successful implementation of CCS which is
energy intensive. Based on the process simulation and engineering solutions provided by technology providers, a significant
duty saving may be achieved by the deployment of several novel technology identified. However, a proper technology
qualification process is required to ensure successful deployment of these technologies that in turn will enable the full recovery
of the energy footprint reduction identified.

References

[1] Masanori Abe, Shigeru Saito, Daiji Tanase, Yoshihiro Sawada, Yoshio Hirama, Yoshihiko Motoyama. CCS Large-
scale Demonstration in Japan : Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 6326-6334.
[2] Wim Malllon, Luuk Buit, Janneke van Windergen, Han Lemmens, Nils Henrik Eldrup. Cost of CO2 Transportation
infrastructures : Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2969-2980
[3] Jacques Monne, Catherine Prinet. Lacq-Rousse Industrial CCS reference project : Description and operational
feedback after two and half years of operation
[4] Richard Dennis and Manfred Klein. CO2 Compression Opportunities in Fossil Fueled Power Plants : Panel Session
Overview, IGTI ASME Turbo Expo, Montreal, Canada, May 14-17, 2007
10 OTC-25051-MS

[5] Antonio Musardo, Vinod Patel, Gabrielle Giovani, Marco Pellela, Mark Weatherwax, Sergio Cipriani. CO2
COMPRESSION AT WORLD’S LARGEST CARBON DIOXIDE INJECTION PROJECT : Proceedings of the
Fortieth Turbomachinery Symposium, September 24-27, 2012, Houston, Texas
[6] JRC62502. European Commission Joint Research CentreInstitute for Energy. “Technical and Economic
Characteristics of a CO2 Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure”
[7] DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT NO. : HC-EPTC/2012/0001/Doc001 “PROVISION OF FRONT END
ENGINEERING SERVICES IN HIGH CO2 GAS FIELD.
[8] DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT NO. : 6859-000-PR-RPT-B004 “PROVISION OF FRONT END ENGINEERING
SERVICES IN HIGH CO2 GAS FIELD -Process and Utility Design Basis” :
[9] DEPE/2013/010 : CO2 Reinjection Pipeline Hydraulics Study
[10] T3.1 Compression and Pumping Optimisation Project presentation to Technology Management TM, EPTC, 14th
June 2012
[11] SYSTEM INTEGRATION & TRADE-OFF STUDIES (SITOS) K5 CASE A PRESENTATION, 22nd March 2012

[12] Project T3.2 Final Report : Turboexpander Optimization In High CO2 Fields, OCTOBER 2013

[13] Equipment datasheet and Specifications, 15 April 2013

[14] DOE Office of Clean Energy Systems, EPRI, and NIST, Workshop on Future Large CO2 Compression Sytem,
March 30, 2009
[15] RTS\20130424\006723 : Technology Qualification Exercise of CO2 Pump Application, July 2013
[16] DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT NO. : 6859-000-PR-EL-B001 “PROVISION OF FRONT END ENGINEERING
SERVICES IN HIGH CO2 GAS FIELD –Equipment List- Scope B” :