You are on page 1of 15

Gas Machinery Conference 2011

October 3-6, 2011, Nashville, TN

Economic Evaluation Model for Various Drivers and Driven Equipment

Technologies in Gas Compression Applications

Bruce Olsen
Kinder Morgan

Rainer Kurz
Mark Hughes
Bernhard Winkelmann
Solar Turbines Incorporated


This study describes methodologies and concepts for economic evaluations of different
driver and compressor options in natural gas compression applications. In today’s
environment various gas compression applications including electric motor, natural gas
fired turbines, and natural gas fired internal combustion engines driving centrifugal,
screw, and reciprocating compressors are common. The intent of this study is not to
determine which of the preceding equipment configurations should be selected based on
their compression characteristics. The intent is to provide guidelines for conducting an
economic evaluation of which configuration to utilize once the project’s physical
compression configuration selections are determined. A primary decision in the design
stage that will affect the economics is whether the horsepower installed will consist of (1)
a single unit or multiple units, (2) a limited number of high horsepower units (3) multiple
units of lower horsepower, or (4) if redundant horsepower will be installed. Multiple
units aggregating to that of a single package will generally cost more to install than a
single unit.

The study highlights the sensitivity of the outcome of an economic evaluation to the
weighting and assumptions of various contributing elements. The concepts utilized in
making an economic evaluation are described in the following. Particular emphasis is on
the impact of various costs over the equipment’s predicted life cycle in addition to the
original purchase and installation cost. Methods to assess the installation cost, CAPEX
and OPEX, fuel cost, emissions, as well as operational issues are presented. Finally,
several real world examples for the application of the described methodology are
provided and discussed.


As engineers, many discussions we have regarding equipment, be it drivers or

compressors; evolve around the efficiency of the equipment. Indeed, tremendous effort is
and should be spent to select and specify equipment that can perform a given task with
the least amount of fuel and the optimum compressor efficiency. This can lead to
significant efficiency improvements for drivers and driven equipment, which can
contribute to reducing their overall cost of operation.

When the specific equipment, driver and compressor, is selected for purchase,
installation, and operation, efficiency is only one part, albeit an important one, of the
overall economic equation. Other, equally important factors we will discuss are the
reliability and availability of the equipment, maintenance costs, future capital costs,
initial equipment cost, installation cost, and other operating costs over the predicted life
span of the equipment.

The cost of fuel required for compression (which is directly influenced by the efficiency
of the equipment), is, in most cases small compared to the value of the product being
compressed, or even the value added by the compression process. This is intuitively
obvious, because in most instances, nobody would spend money on a compression
project if the fuel cost alone were higher than the value added to the product. In a typical
pipeline compressor station the fuel consumption is only fractions of a percent of the gas
pumped through the station but over the equipment’s life cycle can be a significant factor
in the economic evaluation.

The value for the pipeline operator is typically not the market value of the gas, but the
revenue generated as structured by the pipeline’s contract transportation rates or FERC
gas tariff. Conversely any penalties the pipeline operator may have to pay if the gas can’t
be delivered will reduce the revenue generated. Thus, it becomes clear that being able to
compress gas may trump the efficiency issue. However, over time the fuel cost can be a
large part of the overall cost of operation and should be considered in the economic

Emissions regulations, or the carbon footprint of a project, can also be a significant cost
factor to consider in the selection of equipment. The equipment selected will definitely
need to achieve the required emission levels. The impact the emissions reduction
methods utilized on or selected for the equipment will have on the overall fuel use should
also be considered. Different emissions reduction methods can have varying affects on
the equipment’s efficiency and resulting fuel use.

It is important to acknowledge that equipment in general primarily only earns money for
the operator when it is capable of being utilized. Thus the reliability and availability of
the equipment can also be a considerable component for consideration in the economic
evaluation. The availability and reliability of equipment to operate when required, rather
than being shut down for planned or unplanned maintenance, can have a huge impact on
the profitability of the operation.

Cost estimates for all of these project parameters are measurable, given sufficient effort,
and should be included in the project evaluation phase. The actual future price of fuel,
maintenance costs, capital costs, and the reliability and availability of the equipment may
not be fully realized at the offset of the project. However, estimates based on experience
and trending can be made and included in the evaluation. These estimates can also
include probability distributions for the actual occurrence of specific values if desired.
For example, the gas price may be estimated at 6$/MMBTU, with a certain probability
distribution, so there is a certain probability that the gas price is between 5.90 and 6.10 $/
MMBTU, another (smaller) probability that the gas price is between 5.7 and 5.89
$/MMBTU, and so on. Similar considerations apply to all input variables that have to be
considered if life cycle cost or any other economic parameter is to be determined.

While the methodology lends itself to any type of driver and driven equipment
configuration, we have considered mainly natural gas engine and natural gas turbine
driven equipment in this study. We have also focused on typical US pipeline applications,
but again, the methodology can be used for any other application.

Capital Cost: Initial Equipment Cost and Installation Cost

Capital cost for a project consists of both the initial equipment cost and installation cost.
Although not intuitively obvious, this is also the area that is affected by driver derates due
to site ambient temperature and site elevation. The power demand of the compressor and
ancillary equipment has to be met at site conditions, not at ISO or NEMA conditions and
must be considered for the configurations selected.

The physical gas piping components required for each configuration will generally be the
same. However, the ancillary equipment and other considerations required for the various
configurations considered can be significantly different, contributing to variations in the
first cost and installation cost. For example (1) an electric motor (EMD) installation may
require a significant investment in an electric infrastructure that natural gas fired turbines
and internal combustion engines may not, (2) a reciprocating compressor will typically
require an extensive vibration and pulsation study that a centrifugal compressor may not
and, (3) an internal combustion engine may require a larger foundation than a turbine or

The initial equipment cost not only includes the cost for the driver(s) and compressor(s),
and their skid or foundation, but also the necessary systems that are required for
operating them including filters, coolers, pulsation bottles, instruments, control systems,
and valves. The initial equipment cost may also include spare parts and tools specific to
the equipment being installed, freight and taxes on materials, and the purchasing costs

The installation cost typically includes all labor, construction equipment, land,
environmental, regulatory, and legal costs (both company and third party) to install the

equipment on site. The physical installation cost is generally determined by the facilities
to be installed, their weights, their physical footprints, the amount of labor necessary to
commission, or bring the shipped components to working condition.

These two costs will vary with the configurations chosen and must be carefully derived to
assist in the complete economic evaluation.

Operations & Maintenance and Future Capital Cost

Operations and maintenance cost includes the parts, chemicals, disposables, labor, etc. to
keep the equipment running at or above the required reliability and availability levels
while maintaining the power and throughput requirements. This includes routine
maintenance tasks like change of lube oil and spark plugs in gas engines, control system
corrections, compressor valve replacements, filter replacements (air, fuel, seal gas, etc.),
and minor overhauls.

Capital cost includes the major package components that are considered “units of
property” that can be classified as an asset replacement and placed on your company’s
asset ledger. The inclusion of specific items in capital may vary from company to
company but generally include such items as electric motors, turbines, turbochargers,
complete control systems, emissions systems, etc.

Maintenance and capital events can be calendar, condition monitoring, or failure based. A
cost related to maintenance and capital events is the cost due to the unavailability of the
equipment, which is discussed in more detail below. Many, but not all maintenance
events require the shut down of the equipment, thus reducing its availability. Capital
events will typically always reduce its availability. Scheduled events may have less of an
effect on your company’s revenue than unscheduled events. For example, a scheduled
overhaul of a gas turbine, power cylinder head replacement, spark plug replacement, or
other work will generally require less time out of service than that required for an
unscheduled replacement. Planned maintenance and capital events are critical to achieve
the required revenue generation but also to maintain proper customer relations with the
company(s) you are moving gas for.

To reduce maintenance and capital event outage intervals, a good working relationship,
proper coordination of parts and personnel, and working agreements between the
operating company and any service provider is imperative. The knowledge, skills and
abilities of both operating company and service provider personnel, the availability of
service provider personnel to respond quickly, the stocking of parts and equipment, and
any special arrangements that can be worked out with the service provider (for example
the ability to have complete turbines, motors, or engines available for replacement vs.
overhaul) should all be considered in the economic evaluation.

Efficiency, Operating Range and Fuel Cost

The performance parameters of the compressor and driver are important for the operating
range and operating efficiency and in turn for the economic evaluation. Efficiency
ultimately means the quantity and cost of fuel consumed to bring a certain amount of gas
from a suction pressure to a discharge pressure. In technical terms, a high efficiency
package would be one with a high thermal efficiency (or low heat rate) for the driver, and
a high isentropic efficiency for the compressor, including all parasitic losses (such as
devices to dampen pulsations, piping losses, compressor losses, and pressure drop due to
filtration requirements) combined with low mechanical losses. This factor determines the
fuel cost of the unit while operating at the given operating conditions.

Operating range describes the range of possible operating conditions in terms of flow and
head at an acceptable efficiency, within the power capability of the driver. Of particular
importance are the means of controlling the compressor (for example speed control for
centrifugal machines, or cylinder deactivation, clearance control and others for a
reciprocating machine) and the relationship between head and flow of the system the
compressor feeds into. Operating range often determines the capability to take advantage
of opportunities to sell more gas. It should be noted that there is no real low flow limit
for stations, due to the conceptual capability for station recycle to avoid shutting down
units. Unit shutdown, in turn has to be considered with regards to starting reliability of
the units in question, as well as the impact on maintenance. In this study, operating range
and the upside potential are not specifically considered. They should be considered in the
selection of the driver and compressor to ensure the required operating conditions are

The cost of the fuel gas is not automatically the same as the market price of the
transported gas. It depends, among other things, on how the amount of fuel used and any
resulting reimbursement is defined in the contracts or tariff. The fuel component can be
defined as a percentage of the amount of gas moved, a percentage of the gas moved with
a maximum percentage established, an amount equal to that utilized as fuel for
compression, or any other definition established in the contract or tariff. The contract or
tariff requirements can thus have different effects on the equipment selected and the
impact of fuel in the economic evaluation.

The performance of the compressor drivers is generally categorized by the heat rate.
Heat rate (brake specific fuel consumption, in BTU/HP-hr or kJ/kWh) is a measure of the
conversion efficiency from fuel to shaft horsepower. A heat rate of 9000 BTU/HP-hr is a
fuel conversion efficiency of just over 28 percent. The lower the heat rate the more fuel
efficient the compression driver

Other operating costs include the cost for lube oil changes (the frequency of lube oil
changes may also affect the availability of the equipment), the cost of electricity to
operate accessories like lube oil pumps, or cooler fans where necessary, or the cost of
maintaining post combustion emissions treatment.

Overall it is very important to understand the pipeline system characteristics to determine
relevant operating points for the comparison. Since the economic model allows entering a
number of operating conditions, together with an estimated duration, it is important to
select operating conditions that are compatible with the system behavior.

Lastly, while most maintenance and capital costs are based on an ISO or NEMA
horsepower basis, fuel consumption calculations and calculations requiring available
power have to be based on the prevailing site ambient pressure and ambient temperature.


Any natural gas powered combustion engine will produce a number of undesirable
combustion products. NOx is the result of the reaction between Nitrogen (in the fuel or
combustion air) and oxygen, and requires high local temperatures to form. Lean premix
gas turbines and lean premix internal combustion engines reduce the NOx production.
Catalytic exhaust gas treatments, such as NSCR oxidation catalysts can remove a
significant portion of CO in the exhaust gas. Whatever emissions control option is
utilized, in addition to their physical components, they also generally require the addition
of controls and monitoring devices that increase the initial equipment cost, installation
cost, and maintenance costs used in the economic evaluation.

Products of incomplete combustion include volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), CO,

Methane, and Formaldehyde. Fuel bound sulfur will form SOx in the combustion process.
The combustion products above are usually regulated. For the economic analysis, the cost
of bringing the equipment to meet local or federal limits has to be considered.

It further needs to be considered that the engine exhaust is not the only source of
emissions in a compressor station related to the compression equipment. There are also
sources of methane leaks in the compression equipment that may have to be considered,
because methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG). The GHG monitoring costs
associated with the various types of compression packages maybe different in the
economic evaluation. For example, whether the compression equipment can be
maintained and started from a pressurized hold determines the amount of unwanted
station methane emissions.

Reliability and Availability

Availability is the ratio between the hours per year where the equipment is ready to
operate and the total hours per year. Availability therefore takes into account the entire
equipment downtime, both due to planned and unplanned maintenance events throughout
the year. Thus, if the operator needs the equipment for 8760 hours per year, and the
equipment requires 3 shutdowns, lasting 2 days each, for scheduled maintenance, and in
addition also has to be shut down for 3 days due to an equipment failure, the availability
of the equipment would be 97.5%. [(8760-(3*2*24)-(3*24)) = 8544 and 8544/8760 =

Reliability is the ratio between the required operating hours it can actually operate and
the hours per year when the equipment is required to be operating. Reliability therefore
takes into account the equipment downtime when its use is required, both due to planned
and unplanned maintenance events. Thus, if the operator needs the equipment for 6000
hours per year, and the equipment needs to be taken down 3 times, lasting 2 days each for
scheduled maintenance (when the equipment is not needed for service), and in addition it
is shut down for 3 days due to a equipment failure, the reliability of the equipment would
be 98.8% [6000-(3*24) =5928 and 5928/6000=98.8%]. This example highlights that
planned maintenance may have limited impact on the usability of the unit if it can be
performed during times when the unit is not used anyway. Thus, reliability only takes
into account unplanned maintenance events.

The availability and reliability of the equipment both have a direct impact on the
capability of an installation to earn money. The compression must be maintained and be
available to perform when its service is required. In addition the compression must be
maintained and be reliable to continue performing its service when required. Thus the
compression must be both available for compression when needed and be reliable to keep
compressing gas when operating to earn income. Since many new installations are
required to run all year with minimal interruptions, availability and reliability are very
important criteria during the equipment selection.

Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is another consideration related to reliability or the
number of downtime occurrences related to failures. MTBF can be shown as the hours
required for the equipment to be operated over a time period divided by the number of
downtime occurrences experienced in that time period. Thus if an operator requires the
equipment to operate 8,580 hours per year and during that operating period the equipment
is down 6 times, for either scheduled or unscheduled maintenance, the MTBF calculation
would be 8580/6 or every 1,430 hours. Long MTBF is important, because any operator
wants to have as few as possible unplanned, or disruptive, shutdowns.

The loss of income because of an installations inability to perform, whether it is not

available or not reliable when needed, is primarily due to the installation’s inability to
move contracted volumes. In addition to not being able to move the contracted volumes,
additional system sales opportunities may be lost, and contract or tariff related penalties
could be assessed. Thus the value associated with the inability to perform is not
necessarily only the market value of the lost throughput. It may also be the loss of income
from being able to compress the commodity, any cost associated with contract or tariff
penalties for not being able to satisfy delivery contracts, or the cost for lost opportunity.

Equipment downtime is the common factor reducing the overall percentage of both the
availability and reliability calculations. Besides the type of compression equipment and
its ancillary equipment, the quality of the installation, the equipment operation and
maintenance program, and the measures taken to deal with environmental conditions (air,
fuel etc.) can have a significant effect on the availability and reliability of the equipment.

The availability and reliability can be improved by installing spare/redundant
horsepower. However, this adds additional costs to the initial equipment cost, the
installation cost, the operation and maintenance costs, and may cause difficulties in the
permitting process.

Economic Evaluation Considerations

Each company will have different input considerations to analyze in the economic model
and the evaluation and significance placed on each of the preceding category discussions
can be varied based on the company’s contractual or tariff requirements. Before
beginning the evaluation and establishing the model though each of the preceding
categories should generally be investigated as a contributing factor and analyzed for its
importance. In addition along with determining what period of time the installation’s life
cycle analysis should consider one should make projections on future costs of fuel, future
operations and maintenance cost escalations, tax rates, and what discount rate to use for
evaluating the cost of capital.

The Model

The evaluation model assumes that the user knows, or is able to estimate the necessary
input variables.

The model presented uses input and output variables per Table 1.

Input variables Project Specific Input Output Variables

Fuel Cost ($/MMBTU) Compressor Power NPV Cost of Ownership
Consumption (hp)
Gas Tariff ($/dekatherm) Gas Flow (MMSCF/yr)
Electricity Cost ($/MWhr) Driver Fuel Consumption
Number of Operating Electricity Consumption
Personnel Cost Station Operating Hours
Maintenance Cost ($/hp/yr) Driver Operating Hours
Station Operating Hours
Capital Cost ($ or $/hp)
Availability (%)
Discount Rate (%)

Table 1: Input and output variables for the Model

Figure 1 is an example illustrating the annual Operations and Maintenance cost data for
inclusion in an economic evaluation. The other costs to be considered in the economic
evaluation can also be derived and tabulated for the operations required. Of course, the
costs utilized have to be carefully analyzed. For example, a bias due to the use of data
from older installations which are not relevant to what is being evaluated has to be

Figure 1: Typical detailed cost data.

Data Gathering
The data necessary to run this model will come from different sources. Manufacturers
will provide site specific performance and emissions data for the drivers, as well as the
compressor operating for multiple operating scenarios. They will also provide cost data
for the equipment and, if selected, data for maintenance cost. Users and manufacturers
may have information about the availability, reliability or MTBF of their fleets.
Certainly, the operators can gauge fuel cost, as well as lost revenue due to outage.

Sample Case Study
To demonstrate the method, the following scenario (Table 2), typical for a pipeline
compressor station, was analyzed.

Operating Point # 1 2 3 4 5 6
%Time for each operating point 10 10 20 20 20 20
Average Ambient Temperature 90 60 70 85 30 25
P1 800 800 800 800 800 800
P2 900 1,000 1,000 950 1,100 1,100
Inlet Line T1 80 75 75 75 75 75
Flow 600 700 800 900 950 1,000

Table 2: Operating Conditions. Site elevation was 500 ft, and natural gas with a specific
gravity of SG=0.65 was assumed both as process gas and as fuel gas.

Three cases were considered:

1- Using a single gas turbine driven centrifugal compressor (approx. 20,000hp at
ISO conditions)
2- Using three smaller, gas turbine driven centrifugal compressors (approx. 6000hp
at ISO conditions, each)
3- Using three gas engine driven reciprocating compressors (approx. 5500hp each)

It was further assumed that the station has to operate 6000 hours per year. The electrical
consumption was based on typical practice in the industry for equipment of this size,
where the gas turbine lube oil pump is engine driven, and the oil cooler uses an electric
fan. For the gas engines, it was assumed that all accessories are driven by electric motors,
which is typical for machines of that size.

Due to the varying operating conditions, the three different configurations exhibit varying
efficiencies, operating speeds, etc. as shown in Appendix 1..

Using typical cost data for consumables (Table 3)

Fuel and Electricity Data

Fuel Btu/SCF 910
Fuel Cost, $/MMBtu $4.00
Gas Tariff, $/decatherm $0.35
Electricity, $/MWhr $80.00
Table 3: Fuel cost, gas tariff, and electricity cost for the example.

- 10 -
Utilizing some typical assumptions for capital cost, maintenance cost and reliability
(Table 4):

Package Costs and Availability

Capital Cost, $/HP $1,800 $2,400 $2,700
Availability during operating hours 99% 99% 98%
Capacity loss, MMSCF 500 500 1,000
Maintenance, $/HP/Year $20 $20 $60
Table 4: Capital cost (including the initial equipment and installation), availability and
maintenance cost assumptions (these numbers can fluctuate very widely depending on the
specific situation. No particular effort was made to find a representative average. In
particular should these numbers not be the basis for cost studies for particular

Figure 2: Annual operating cost comparison, gas turbines versus reciprocating engines

- 11 -
Figure 3: Life Cycle Cost Present Value for 1 Gas Turbine, 3 Gas Turbines and 3 Gas

In Figures 2 and 3, annual cost and present value based on 20 years of operation (using a
12% discount rate) are shown for the different configurations. The cost of lost capacity is
in comparison relatively low, but this is due to the fact that a very high reliability was
assumed, and the units only operate for 6000 hrs per year. Fuel cost plays a big role, but
so do maintenance cost, and electricity consumption. In this particular case, annual
operating cost and present value are in favor of the single, large gas turbine configuration.

Despite the fact that the example was selected such that the gas engine driven
configuration had an advantage on fuel consumption for most of the operating conditions,
the differences in maintenance cost, as well as the cost for operating electrical accessory
equipment, had a significant impact (Figures 2 and 3) .

In this paper, we have tried to establish a comprehensive set of criteria for the economic
evaluation of various drivers and driven equipment technologies in gas compression
applications. The goal is not to advertise the advantages or disadvantages of different
configurations, but to provide a methodology that allows the user of equipment to make
informed, data driven judgments, based on the actual specifics of a given application. It
should be understood that no single parameter (for example fuel efficiency) is sufficient
to make an economically advantageous decision.

- 12 -
Appendix 1: Gas Turbine and Gas Engine Performance Calculations

Gas Turbine Design #1 Performance

# of Turbines Operating 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT Speed (100 = Optimum) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Minimum Operating Load, % 50%
Results, per turbine basis:
Full Load GT Power 17,066 19,596 18,852 17,535 20,679 20,789 HP/Turbine
Full Load GT Heat Rate 7,472 7,123 7,194 7,387 7,073 7,100 Btu/HP-hr
Compressor Power Requirement 3,743 8,283 9,467 8,143 16,259 17,115 HP/Turbine
Demanded GT Heat Rate 14,597 10,602 10,707 11,725 8,068 7,890 Btu/HP-hr
Demanded GT Fuel 54.7 87.9 101.4 95.5 131.2 135.1 MMBtu/hr
Demanded GT % Load 22% 42% 50% 46% 79% 82%
Recirculation Required? Yes Yes No Yes No No
Actual GT Power 8,537 9,802 9,471 8,772 16,266 17,122 HP
Actual GT Heat Rate 11,336 10,550 10,707 11,167 8,068 7,890 Btu/HP-hr
Actual GT Fuel 96.8 103.4 101.4 97.9 131.2 135.1 MMBtu/hr
Actual GT% Load 50% 50% 50% 50% 79% 82%
Station Summary:
Operating Point # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hours at each Case 600 600 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 hours
Total Compressor Flow 15,000 17,500 40,000 45,000 47,500 50,000 MMSCF
Total Fuel Use, LHV 58,063 62,049 121,684 117,537 157,486 162,120 MMBtu
Specific Fuel Consumption 3.87 3.55 3.04 2.61 3.32 3.24 Btu/SCF
Fuel Consumed/Moved 0.43% 0.39% 0.33% 0.29% 0.36% 0.36%
Annual Performance Summary:
Gas Moved 215,000 MMSCF
Fuel Consumed 678,940 MMBtu
Average Specific Fuel Use 3.2 Btu/SCF
Avg Consumption % of Flow 0.35 %

- 13 -
Gas Turbine Design #2 Performance
# of Turbines Operating 1 2 2 3 3 3
PT Speed (100 = Optimum) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Minimum Operating Load, % 50%
Results, per turbine basis:
Full Load GT Power 5,059 5,836 5,583 5,191 6,226 6,264 HP/Turbine
Full Load GT Heat Rate 9,075 8,648 8,765 8,988 8,467 8,450 Btu/HP-hr
Compressor Power Requirement 3,743 4,142 4,733 2,714 5,420 5,705 HP/Turbine
Demanded GT Heat Rate 10,053 9,813 9,109 12,123 8,811 8,654 Btu/HP-hr
Demanded GT Fuel 37.6 40.7 43.1 32.9 47.8 49.4 MMBtu/hr
Demanded GT % Load 74% 71% 85% 52% 87% 91%
Recirculation Required? No No No No No No
Actual GT Power 3,744 4,144 4,736 2,716 5,423 5,708 HP
Actual GT Heat Rate 10,053 9,813 9,109 12,123 8,811 8,654 Btu/HP-hr
Actual GT Fuel 37.6 40.7 43.1 32.9 47.8 49.4 MMBtu/hr
Actual GT% Load 74% 71% 85% 52% 87% 91%
Station Summary:
Operating Point # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hours at each Case 600 600 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 hours
Total Compressor Flow 15,000 17,500 40,000 45,000 47,500 50,000 MMSCF
Total Fuel Use, LHV 22,586 48,793 103,528 118,527 171,998 177,845 MMBtu
Specific Fuel Consumption 1.51 2.79 2.59 2.63 3.62 3.56 Btu/SCF
Fuel Consumed/Moved 0.17% 0.31% 0.28% 0.29% 0.40% 0.39%
Annual Performance Summary:
Gas Moved 215,000 MMSCF
Fuel Consumed 643,277 MMBtu
Average Specific Fuel Use 3.0 Btu/SCF
Avg Consumption % of Flow 0.33 %

- 14 -
Gas Engine Design Performance
# of Compressor Sets Operating 2 2 2 2 3 3
Flow Requirement, MMSCFD 600 700 800 900 950 1,000
Actual Flow, MMSCFD 600 700 800 900 950 1,000
Engine RPM 393 487 556 603 476 501
Total Recip Compressor Power 3,953 7,883 9,148 8,384 14,755 15,591 HP
Inlet Loss, bottles and piping 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 psi
Outlet Loss, bottles and piping 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 11.1 11.1 psi
Rod Load, Compression 32.1% 53.4% 54.1% 44.3% 74.0% 74.3% %
Rod Load, Tension 19.8% 41.4% 42.2% 32.3% 62.3% 62.6% %

Results, per engine basis:

Full Load Engine Power 5,431 5,431 5,431 5,431 5,431 5,431 HP/Engine
Full Load Engine Heat Rate 6,198 6,198 6,198 6,198 6,198 6,198 Btu/HP-hr
Engine Power Requirement 1,977 3,941 4,574 4,192 4,918 5,197 HP/Engine
Demanded Engine Heat Rate 6,923 6,511 6,378 6,458 6,306 6,247 Btu/HP-hr
Demanded Engine Fuel 13.7 25.7 29.2 27.1 31.0 32.5 MMBtu/hr
Demanded Engine % Load 36% 73% 84% 77% 91% 96%
Recirculation Required? No No No No No No
Actual Engine Power 1,977 3,941 4,574 4,192 4,918 5,197 HP
Actual Engine Heat Rate 6,923 6,511 6,378 6,458 6,306 6,247 Btu/HP-hr
Actual Engine Fuel 13.7 25.7 29.2 27.1 31.0 32.5 MMBtu/hr
Actual Engine % Load 36% 73% 84% 77% 91% 96%
Station Summary:
Operating Point # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hours at each Case 600 600 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Total Compressor Flow 15,000 17,500 40,000 45,000 47,500 50,000 MMSCF
Total Fuel Use, LHV 16,421 30,793 70,012 64,976 111,650 116,881 MMBtu
Specific Fuel Consumption 1.09 1.76 1.75 1.44 2.35 2.34 Btu/SCF
Fuel Consumed/Moved 0.12% 0.19% 0.19% 0.16% 0.26% 0.26%
Annual Performance Summary:
Gas Moved 215,000 MMSCF
Fuel Consumed 410,733 MMBtu
Avg SFC 1.9 Btu/SCF
Avg Consumption % of Flow 0.21 %

- 15 -