How Green is My Oil? A Detailed Look at Carbon Accounting for CO 2 -EOR Sites

Transcription

1 How Green is My Oil? A Detailed Look at Carbon Accounting for CO 2 -EOR Sites Nicholas A. Azzolina and David V. Nakles (The CETER Group, Inc.) Wesley D. Peck, John A. Hamling, and Charles D. Gorecki (EERC) L. Stephen Melzer (Melzer Consulting) Presented at the 21 st Annual CO 2 Flooding Conference December 8, 2015 Midland, Texas

2 2 Initial Observations of Papers and Publications from ~2000 to Present Numbers are all over the place Units are inconsistent Broad assumptions on all aspects of the process Confusion between oil produced and incremental oil produced Massive confusion between CO 2 retention and storage System boundaries drawn at different places across the CO 2 - EOR life-cycle, thus limited comparability across studies Etc., etc.,

3 3 Disconnect Between Industry and Academia Is to Blame Disconnect?

4 Coal Mining and Processing Upstream CO 2 -generating processes CO 2 -EOR System Boundaries 4 Coal Transport to Power Plant Coal-Fired Power Plant (with CO 2 Capture) CO 2 Pipeline CO 2 CO 2 Transport CO 2 EOR Operations Gate-to-Gate e - Electricity Transmission and Distribution crude oil Crude Oil Pipeline Transport to Refinery Downstream CO 2 -generating processes crude oil Petroleum Refining fuel Fuel Transport, Distribution, and Point-of-Sale fuel Fuel Combustion

5 5 Gate-to-Gate CO 2 Accounting CO 2 stored in the reservoir Land use Injection and recovery Bulk separation and storage Gas/liquid separation Crude oil storage Brine water storage and injection Gas separation Refrigeration and fractionation Ryan-Holmes Membrane separation Supporting processes Venting and flaring Gas combustion for process heat

6 6 Up- and Downstream Processes Upstream CO 2 -generating processes Coal extraction and processing Coal transport Thermo-electric generation with CO 2 capture Sources of information: Industry/DOE publications Peer-reviewed literature Ph.D. dissertations Electricity co-product and CO 2 delivery for use Downstream CO 2 -generating processes Crude oil transport (pipeline) Refining Product slate transport and consumption

7 7 CO 2 STORAGE IN THE RESERVOIR What Do We Know from Real-World Reservoir Performance Data?

8 8 What Do We Know From Industry? 31 CO 2 -EOR sites Real-world data Dominated by West Texas carbonate floods San Andres Dolomite Limestone Tripolotic Carbonates Handful of sandstone reservoirs Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 37:

9 Storage (kg CO 2 /bbl) Storage (kg CO 2 / BBL) Storage (kg CO 2 / BBL) 9 Industry Database Summary Carbonate Reservoirs Reported Data E[Y X] 95% CI Sandstone Reservoirs Reported Data E[Y X] 95% CI Cumulative CO 2 + H 2 O Injected (HCPV) Cumulative CO 2 + H 2 O Injected (HCPV) HCPV Carbonate Storage (kg CO 2 /bbl) [Mcf/bbl] Sandstone Storage (kg CO 2 /bbl) [Mcf/bbl] [10.4] 560 [10.8] [8.3] 450 [8.7] [7.7] 420 [8.1]

10 10 Plausible CO 2 Storage Values Industry data 290 to 530 kg CO 2 /bbl 5.6 to 10.2 Mcf/bbl 1.9 to 3.5 bbl/tonne CO 2 Prominent reference (Jaramillo et al., 2009) 154 to 218 kg CO 2 /bbl 3.0 to 4.2 Mcf/bbl 4.6 to 6.5 bbl/tonne CO 2 About half as much CO 2 /bbl Why such a difference? Enivron. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43:

11 Coal Mining and Processing Upstream CO 2 -generating processes Gate-to-Gate Evaluation 11 Coal Transport to Power Plant Coal-Fired Power Plant (with CO 2 Capture) CO 2 Pipeline CO 2 CO 2 Transport CO 2 EOR Operations Gate-to-Gate e - Electricity Transmission and Distribution crude oil Crude Oil Pipeline Transport to Refinery Downstream CO 2 -generating processes crude oil Petroleum Refining fuel Fuel Transport, Distribution, and Point-of-Sale fuel Fuel Combustion

12 GHG GHG Emissions (kg (kg CO CO 2 e/bbl) 2 e/bbl) 12 Gate-to-Gate GHG Balance CO 2 emissions 75 to 120 kg CO 2 e/bbl CO 2 storage 290 to 530 kg CO 2 e/bbl (Average 400 kg CO 2 e/bbl) (100) (200) (300) Emissions CO2 stored (avg.) Net (avg.) Net storage of CO to 455 kg CO 2 e/bbl (500) Refrig./ Fractionation Ryan- Holmes Membrane (400) (Average 300 kg CO 2 e/bbl)

13 13 Compare to Aycaguer et al. (2001) [1] Permian Basin, West Texas kg / kg oil In the range of our model (Average of 300 and range of 170 to 455 kg CO 2 /bbl) [1] Aycaguer, A.C.; Lev-On, M.; and Winer, A.M. (2001) Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions with Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Energy & Fuels, 15:

14 14 Compare to Fox (2009) [1] SACROC complex 3.1 Mt CO 2 / 10.1 MMbbl = 0.31 tonnes CO 2 /bbl = 310 kg CO 2 /bbl In the range of our model (Average of 300 and range of 170 to 455 kg CO 2 /bbl) [1] Fox, C. (2009) CO 2 -EOR Carbon Balance. 7th Annual EOR Carbon Management Workshop, December.

15 Coal Mining and Processing Upstream CO 2 -generating processes Upstream Evaluation 15 Coal Transport to Power Plant Coal-Fired Power Plant (with CO 2 Capture) CO 2 Pipeline CO 2 CO 2 Transport CO 2 EOR Operations Gate-to-Gate e - Electricity Transmission and Distribution crude oil Crude Oil Pipeline Transport to Refinery Downstream CO 2 -generating processes crude oil Petroleum Refining fuel Fuel Transport, Distribution, and Point-of-Sale fuel Fuel Combustion

16 16 Upstream Emissions: Interplay Between Electricity, Oil and CO 2 Coal life-cycle to power plant: 55 kg CO 2 e/mwh Coal power plant generated: 980 kg CO 2 e/mwh Coal power plant captured (90% capture): 880 kg CO 2 e/mwh Coal power plant emitted (10%): 98 kg CO 2 e/mwh CO 2 transport (100 to 1000 km): 5 kg CO 2 e/tonne CO 2 The purchased volume of CO 2 used for EOR drives the calculations [1] Rubin, E. S.; Rao, A. B.; and Chen, C. (2007) Cost and Performance of Fossil Fuel Power Plants with CO 2 Capture and Storage. Energy Policy, 35(9): [2] Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W. M.; Matthews, H. S. (2007) Comparative life cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (17), [3] Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W.M.; McCoy, S.T. (2009) Life Cycle Inventory of CO 2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43,

17 17 Let s Return to Fox (2009) SACROC complex (ca. 2007): 4.08 Mt purchased CO 2, 10.1 MMbbl Electricity needs at 1 MWh/880 kg CO 2 e: 4.6 million MWh Coal life-cycle to power plant: 0.3 Mt CO 2 e Coal power plant emitted (at 90% capture): 0.5 Mt CO 2 e CO 2 transport (100 to 1000 km): Total upstream emissions: Direct/indirect emissions (from Fox, 2009): 0.02 Mt CO 2 e 0.82 Mt CO 2 e 0.97 Mt CO 2 e Total purchased CO 2 : Mt CO 2 Net balance: Even with upstream emissions, still net storage of 229 kg CO 2 /bbl Mt CO 2 e

18 Coal Mining and Processing Upstream CO 2 -generating processes Downstream Evaluation 18 Coal Transport to Power Plant Coal-Fired Power Plant (with CO 2 Capture) CO 2 Pipeline CO 2 CO 2 Transport CO 2 EOR Operations Gate-to-Gate e - Electricity Transmission and Distribution crude oil Crude Oil Pipeline Transport to Refinery Downstream CO 2 -generating processes crude oil Petroleum Refining fuel Fuel Transport, Distribution, and Point-of-Sale fuel Fuel Combustion

19 19 Downstream Emissions: Driven Entirely by Oil Production [1] DOE-NETL [United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory], Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels, DOE/NETL-2009/1346, November 26, [2] Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W.M.; McCoy, S.T. (2009) Life Cycle Inventory of CO 2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, [3] Cai, H.; Brandt, A.R.; Yeh, S.; Englander, J.G.; Han, J.; Elgowainy, A.; and Wang, M.Q. (2015) Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Canadian Oil Sands Products: Implications for U.S. Petroleum Fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49(13):

20 20 Emissions from Oil Combustion There s no escaping it

21 21 Returning to Fox (2009) Again SACROC complex (ca. 2007): 4.08 Mt purchased CO 2, 10.1 MMbbl Transport: Refining: Combustion: Total downstream emissions: Total upstream emissions (from slide #17): Direct/indirect emissions (from slide #17): Total emissions: Total purchased CO 2 : Net balance: 0.09 Mt CO 2 e 0.74 Mt CO 2 e 4.06 Mt CO 2 e 4.89 Mt CO 2 e 0.82 Mt CO 2 e 0.97 Mt CO 2 e 6.68 Mt CO 2 e Mt CO 2 e 2.60 Mt CO 2 e With up- and downstream emissions (including combustion), there is a net emission of approximately 260 kg CO 2 /BBL

22 22 Another Way to Look at This: Compared to Regular Oil Extraction Port-to-Port Port-to-refinery Refinery Combustion Upstream electricity Coal-to-liquid (CTL) (High) Synthetic crude oil (SCO) oil shale mining (High) SCO oil shale mining (Low) SCO oil shale in-situ (High) SCO oil shale in-situ (Low) Dilbit B SCO oil sands (mining process) SCO oil sands (in-situ process) Dilbit A Synbit Mexico Venezuela U.S. domestic U.S. status quo Imported crude oil Canada CTL (Low) Saudi (Light) UK COCO2 2 EOR kg CO 2 e/bbl kg CO 2 e/bbl Unconventional Conventional Mangmeechai, A. (2009) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Consumptive Water Use and Levelized Costs of Unconventional Oil in N. America. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.

23 23 How Green Is My Oil? CO 2 -EOR projects store kg CO 2 /bbl in the reservoir Carbon balance is sensitive to the system boundary Gate-to-gate: Net CO 2 storage of 170 to 455 kg CO 2 /bbl Including up- and down-stream emissions (in SACROC example): Without combustion: Net CO 2 storage of 146 kg CO 2 /bbl With combustion: Net CO 2 emission of 260 kg CO 2 /bbl Additional work using industry data, region-specific storage metrics, and uncertainty quantification is needed.

24 24 Contact Information Energy & Environmental Research Center University of North Dakota 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 Grand Forks, ND World Wide Web: Telephone No. (701) Fax No. (701) Wesley Peck, Principal Geologist and Geosciences Group Lead Nicholas Azzolina, Senior Scientist

25 25 Acknowledgment This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory under Award No. DE-FE Disclaimer This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.