Page 24: of Offshore Engineer Magazine (Feb/Mar 2015)

23 25

The Valhall power from shore decision Knudsen says. “We shouldn’t forget the was based on economics.” number of wind farms out in the North

OVER

Statoil had also already decided to Sea from Germany driven by the same electrify Johan Sverdrup from day one, technology.” said Oistein Johannessen, VP communi- According to Knudsen, power from cations, DPN, Statoil. shore energy ef? - “The (additional) deci- ciency is about 90%. sion was about how In comparison, he to provide energy to says, offshore gas other ? elds in the Utsira turbine ef? ciency region.” He said Statoil is about 25-35%, or looked at electri? cation 35-40% using heat as a technology concept recovery tech- for all of its ? elds, taking nologies. An added into considering the bene? t is that it can broader cost bene? t, as reduce offshore man- well as the price of gas power requirements and electricity. The ? nal because you no lon- decision on how Johan ger need to manage

Hans Erik Horn, director, Energi

Norway.

Sverdrup, and neighbor- rotating equipment, as ing ? elds, is powered is well as reducing noise.

due to be made early this year. A survey commissioned by Energy

For Knudsen, power from shore is Norway and Norwegian Petroleum established, not just in Norway, and Directorate found that Valhall, Troll and ef? cient. Knudsen cites the Saudi Gjøa all experienced improved economic

YEARS OF

Aramco’s Safaniyah project, powered by performance from power, improved reli- 230kV and 115vK cables from Nexans. ability, plus reduction in noise and vibra-

ENHANCING “This is not because they have a parlia- tion and reduced maintenance, which ment which says it (should do this),” improved economics, by using power

SUBSEA

TECHNOLOGY

Energy Recovery and Zaptec

THROUGH

A number of organizations have been look- This technology means the number of ing at ways to reduce energy use and emis- turbines on a platform can be reduced,

ENGINEERING sions o