O slideshow foi denunciado.
Seu SlideShare está sendo baixado. ×

Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery

Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio

Confira estes a seguir

1 de 57 Anúncio

Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery

Baixar para ler offline

View the presentation for a January 2016 IEA webinar that examined the opportunities and challenges of using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to store carbon dioxide permanently. This form of carbon capture and storage (CCS), known as EOR+, requires special drivers and policies but offers the means of storing half to more than two times the amount of CO2 required under the IEA 2 Degrees Scenario. This presentation, led by IEA Director of Sustainability, Technology and Outlooks Kamel Ben Naceur, includes input from Rystad Energy, StrategicFit, Statoil and the University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute.

View the presentation for a January 2016 IEA webinar that examined the opportunities and challenges of using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to store carbon dioxide permanently. This form of carbon capture and storage (CCS), known as EOR+, requires special drivers and policies but offers the means of storing half to more than two times the amount of CO2 required under the IEA 2 Degrees Scenario. This presentation, led by IEA Director of Sustainability, Technology and Outlooks Kamel Ben Naceur, includes input from Rystad Energy, StrategicFit, Statoil and the University of Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute.

Anúncio
Anúncio

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (20)

Quem viu também gostou (19)

Anúncio

Semelhante a Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery (20)

Mais de International Energy Agency (13)

Anúncio

Mais recentes (20)

Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery

  1. 1. © OECD/IEA 2016 Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery International Energy Agency Webinar 14 January 2016
  2. 2. © OECD/IEA 2016 Storing CO2 through EOR – EOR+ IEA Insights Paper released early in November 2015 Objectives:  Estimate the global technical potential and distribution  Explore economics of storage cases  Consider the emissions reduction potential  Options to overcome barriers to EOR+  Analysis by the IEA and partners Rystad Energy and StrategicFit 2IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  3. 3. © OECD/IEA 2016 Webinar Agenda 1 Introduction and motivation Kamel Ben Naceur (IEA) 2 Basis for the EOR+ assessment and key results Sean McCoy(IEA) 3 Technical potential for EOR+ Nils-Henrik Bjurstrøm (Rystad Energy) 4 Illustrative project-level economics Chris Jones (StrategicFit) 5 Emissions reduction potential and policy barriers to EOR+ Sean McCoy (IEA) 6 Comments and perspectives on EOR+ Per Ivar Karstad (Statoil) Steven Carpenter (UW-EORI) 7 Moderated Q&A Juho Lipponen (IEA) 3IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  4. 4. © OECD/IEA 2016 Introduction and motivations Kamel BEN NACEUR Director, Sustainability, Technology & Outlooks International Energy Agency 4IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  5. 5. © OECD/IEA 2016 The IEA at a glance  Inter-governmental body founded in 1974; currently 29 Member Countries  Provides policy advice and energy security coordination  Covers whole energy policy spectrum across all major energy technologies 5  Key publications: World Energy Outlook, Energy Technology Perspectives, Technology Roadmaps  Enlarging the IEA via association with major emerging economies IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  6. 6. © OECD/IEA 2016 Energy technology collaboration  IEA’s Energy Technology Network includes 39 Energy Technology Collaboration Programs  Independent organisations providing technology input to IEA analysis 6IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  7. 7. © OECD/IEA 2016 CCS is an essential part of a low-carbon portfolio of technologies  Increased ambition of the Paris agreement requires larger removals by carbon sinks  IEAGHG was established in 1991; IEA ramped-up CCS activity around 2000 and formed a dedicated CCS unit in 2010 7 CCS accounts for 13% of cumulative emissions reductions in IEA 2DS scenario against business as usual. Source: IEA ETP-2015 IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  8. 8. © OECD/IEA 2016 Storage through CO2-EOR (“EOR+”) is growing in importance  CCS has struggled to expand and meet expectations, often for economic reasons  Hence the tendency to look for ways to utilise captured CO2 to offset capture costs  EOR is by far the largest single use of CO2 today, but typically injected CO2 is not monitored and verified for storage  IEA has therefore analysed a “change of paradigm”: how CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery could be co- exploited  “EOR+” 8IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  9. 9. © OECD/IEA 2016 Basis for the EOR+ assessment and key results Sean MCCOY Energy Analyst International Energy Agency 9IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  10. 10. © OECD/IEA 2016 Storing CO2 through EOR  CO2-flood Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) is widely practiced in the United States and results in permanent storage of CO2  CO2-EOR is attractive because:  Operators have over 30-years of commercial experience with EOR  It can slow declining oil production  Regulations surrounding EOR are generally clear  The infrastructure built today for EOR could compliment development of saline aquifer sequestration in future (e.g. CO2 pipelines) IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 10
  11. 11. © OECD/IEA 2016 Injected CO2 drives oil production, is produced alongside the oil and recycled Image: Global CCS Institute IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 11
  12. 12. © OECD/IEA 2016 CO2-EOR drives increased oil production from the Weyburn Unit Around 30,000 bbl/day total production, over 20,000 bbl/day due to CO2-EOR Figure: Cenovus Energy/Malcolm Wilson, PTRC IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 12
  13. 13. © OECD/IEA 2016 Use of CO2-EOR has been growing steadily 13IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 Data: Kuuskra & Wallace,2014
  14. 14. © OECD/IEA 2016 Shifting from conventional EOR to EOR+ 1. Site characterisation to collect information on overlying cap-rock and geological formations, as well as abandoned wellbores, and assessment of the risk of CO2 leakage of from the reservoir. 2. Measurement of venting and fugitive emissions from surface processing equipment. 3. Monitoring and enhanced field surveillance aimed at identifying and, if necessary, estimating leakage rates from the site and assessing whether the reservoir behaves as anticipated. 4. Well abandonment processes that increase confidence in long-term containment of injected CO2, in particular to ensure they withstand the corrosive effects of CO2-water mixtures. 14IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  15. 15. © OECD/IEA 2016 And, it (should) go without saying... CO2 produced for the sole purpose of using it in CO2-EOR (e.g., produced from natural accumulations) can not, in general, deliver a climate benefit and Captured CO2 must be a relatively low-value byproduct of power generation or industrial production (e.g. fertilizer, hydrogen, cement, iron & steel) 15IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  16. 16. © OECD/IEA 2016 Report considers of three EOR+ operational models Scenario Incremental recovery % OOIP Utilisation tCO2/bbl (mscf/bbl) Conventional EOR+ 6.5 0.3 (5.7) Advanced EOR+ 13 0.6 (11.4) Maximum Storage EOR+ 13 0.9 (17.1)  All projects undertake the four storage-focused activities  CO2 is assumed to be captured from anthropogenic sources for the purpose of avoiding emissions. 16IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  17. 17. © OECD/IEA 2016 Large technical potential for storage Around half of the storage required in the 2DS could come from Conventional EOR+… and more than twice the needed capacity through Advanced EOR+ 17IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  18. 18. © OECD/IEA 2016 Potential for incremental production is equally large Technical potential for large incremental oil production under Advanced and Maximum Storage EOR+… large proportion of oil demand under the 2DS 18IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  19. 19. © OECD/IEA 2016 The NPV of Advanced EOR+ comes out ahead under all ETP scenarios As a result of both increased storage and production, and despite added costs, Advanced EOR+ has the highest NPV under all ETP scenarios 19IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  20. 20. © OECD/IEA 2016 EOR+ can deliver emissions reductions, but will need supportive policy Emissions  Emissions from fossil fuel combustion can be offset by higher CO2-utilization, i.e., Advanced EOR+  Even Conventional EOR+ can bring a climate benefit through displacement 20 Policy  Expanding the use of EOR – regardless of the “+”  Encouraging adoption of practices to “store” CO2 consistent with the requirements of the climate change mitigation objectives  Utilizing more CO2 as part of the EOR extraction process. IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  21. 21. © OECD/IEA 2016 Technical potential for EOR+ Nils-Henrik BJURSTRØM Senior Project Manager, Consulting Services and Head of exploration analysis Rystad Energy 21IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  22. 22. The chart outlines the process that identifies candidate fields for CO2 storage during CO2-EOR+ and calculates CO2 storage potential. The starting point is all discovered oil and gas fields in the world. Relevant data for all fields that are either abandoned, currently producing or expected to start production before 2025, are moved into an excel book where the screening takes place. The candidates for CO2-EOR+ are the fields that match the screening criteria (see details on the following pages and appendix). Additional production potential and CO2 storage potential are then calculated per field. The calculated data is imported back into UCube and made available for further analysis through the Cube browser user interface. Data on the largest fields in terms of storage potential per USGS province is exported to excel for further analysis. Overview of screening methodology All UCube Assets All UCube Fields Discovery has been made Medium-term commercial fields - Abandoned fields - Producing fields - Production start before 2025 ~12000 assets Fields with CO2-EOR potential Apply screening criteria ~4600 assets Storage potential per field Apply storage potential calculation Additional UCube value items Ucube RystadEnergyUpstreamDatabase Excel UCube Excel tables with top 10 fields per producing USGS province
  23. 23. Right diagram illustrates the calculation of scores for miscible and immiscible flooding. . The Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) is calculated from crude API and reservoir temperature. The asset is suitable for miscible CO2 flooding if the reservoir pressure is larger than the MMP. The final score is the product of the individual scores for the three additional criteria. The initial gas/oil criterium is used to ensure that the candidate fields do not have gas cap or significant volumes of associated gas. The criterium for remaining oil saturation comes from literature study, and the criterium for effective mobility/viscosity comes from physical considerations. The effective mobility screening criteria is based on the Paul and Lake model of mobility ratio of miscible flooding being a product of effective mobility, heterogeneity factor and gravity factor***. No information about gravity or heterogeneity is available, so the effective permeability ratio will be used as a proxy for mobility ratio. Screening process MMP API Temperatur e Miscible flooding criteria Initial gas/oil ratio < 10% Remaining oil saturation > 30% Effective mobility < 5 Immiscible flooding criteria Initial gas/oil ratio < 1 % Remaining oil saturation > 50% Viscosity < 10 Confidence score Miscible flooding Confidence score Immiscible flooding
  24. 24. Right table summarizes the parameters used to calculate the additional production and CO2 storage potential for the four CO2- EOR practices discussed in the introduction chapter. Additional production is calculated as a percentage of original oil in place (OOIP), and CO2 storage is calculated as additional production times storage capacity per additional barrel. The storage capacity is assumed to be proportional to CO2 density at reservoir conditions. Right scatterplot shows calculated CO2 density per candidate field for CO2-EOR. The extra investments in the maximum storage practices are in this study assumed to have effect on storage only. A large part of the extra investments will likely take place after production cessation. More details about the storage capacity calculations are given in the appendix. CO2 storage capacity = (Additional production) x (CO2 sequestered per additional barrel) Conventio nal EOR+ Advanced EOR+ Maximum storage EOR+ Immiscible Additional production (% of OOIP) 6,5 % 13% 13% 13% CO2 storage capacity at 1500 m (Tonne per additional bbl) 0,3 0,6 0,9 0,65
  25. 25. Right char show global CO2 storage potential split by onshore/offshore. In total, 71% of potential belongs to onshore fields. 114 Gt out of the 390 Gt total storage capacity is in offshore fields. 70% of storage potential belongs to onshore fields CO2 storage potential split by onshore/offshore Gigatonnes 14 58 87 114 276 49 196 294 18 71 390 Conventional EOR+ Maximum storage Immiscible Missing data Total Onshor e Offshor e 71%
  26. 26. Right bar chart shows CO2 storage potential per geographical region by CO2-EOR practices. Middle East and Russia represent 58% of the global potential while North Africa and Central Asia accounts for 11% and 6% of global potential, respectively. Central Asia has higher fraction of fields with potential for immiscible flooding than other regions. More than half of CO2 storage potential is in Middle East and Russia CO2 storage potential per geographical region Gigatonnes 0 50 100 150 Middle East Russia North Africa Central Asia South America West Africa North America Western Europe East Asia South East Asia Eastern Europe South Asia Australia Conventional EOR+ Advanced EOR+ Maximum Storage EOR+ Immiscible 76 % of potential Middle East; 37% Russia; 21% North Africa; 11% Central Asia; 7% Other; 24%
  27. 27. Global storage potential map High confidence score Medium confidence score Key
  28. 28. © OECD/IEA 2016 Illustrative project-level economics Chris JONES Senior Consultant StrategicFit 28IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  29. 29. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 29 • We tested the different EOR practices against IEA oil and CO2 price scenarios for a hypothetical CO2 EOR project- a 1bnbbl STOIIP onshore oil field • The projects were identical apart from the EOR+ operational model This work was carried out in 2014/5 with the IEA to test the economics of different EOR practices Method Increase in Oil Recovery (%OOIP) CO2 storage rate– T/bbl Conventional EOR+ 6.5 0.3 Advanced EOR+ 13 0.6 Max Storage 13 0.9
  30. 30. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 30 CO2 We costed 5 core functional activities to examine the different EOR practices Oil/Gas/Water SeparationCO2 in Well stream – Oil, water, gas CO2 Export Oil Gas, CO2, water CO2/Gas separation and clean up Recycled CO2 re-injected Export Gas Reservoir CO2 Injection CO2 Recycling compression Produced water Long term Monitoring Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Figure 2
  31. 31. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 31 • Phase 1 • CO2 begins to be injected and incremental oil production is ramping up • Phase 2 • Plateau production before CO2 breakthrough • Phase 3 • Exponential decline of the incremental oil production We considered three phases of incremental oil production after CO2 is first injected Incremental Oil Production Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Incremental Oil Production
  32. 32. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 32 • Phase 1 • New patterns are being brought online; CO2 injection increases • Phase 2 • First breakthrough occurs, earlier for Conventional EOR+ than Advanced EOR+/Max Storage • Phase 3 • CO2 is produced with the oil and is recycled at all wells The CO2 required for EOR is initially purchased but gradually recycled volumes dominate Incremental Production Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 CO2 utilisation compared to Oil production Annual CO2 Injected Annual Purchased CO2- Advanced EOR+/MaxStorage Annual Purchase CO2 -Conventional EOR+ Incremental Oil Production Recycled CO2
  33. 33. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 33 • We considered “CO2 supply price” from the perspective of an EOR operator • We used the global averages of IEA 2DS,4DS and 6DS scenarios for CO2 emission penalties and a $40/T cost for capturing to calculate a supply cost- i.e. what an EOR operator would have to pay (or receive) for CO2 How CO2 prices evolve will have a major impact either as a revenue stream or as a cost • In 4DS and 6DS the cost of capture is greater than any emission penalty, the CO2 would be sold to an EOR operator (as is typical today)- it is a cost • In the 2DS the emissions penalty is greater than the cost of capture so an EOR operator would be paid to verifiably store the CO2 – it is a revenue Average CO2 Supply prices under three scenarios Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Figure 3
  34. 34. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 34 • In a 2DS, Max Storage & Advanced EOR+ gain revenues by storing extra CO2 • In 4DS & 6DS Max Storage looks worse due to additional CO2 purchasing costs • All scenarios have oil prices greater than $90/bbl, rising to $150/bbl in 6DS The EOR Plus strategy appears optimal for each of the future scenarios NPV of illustrative CO2-EOR project for different ETP scenarios and EOR practices Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Figure 5
  35. 35. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 35 • Increased oil revenues of Advanced EOR+ outweigh additional costs compared to Conventional EOR+ • Extra CO2 revenues in Max Storage can’t overcome the cost increase as there is no further incremental oil What drives the difference between different practices in a 2DS world? PV Waterfall for a 2DS Global Scenario Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Figure 6
  36. 36. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 36 What would Carbon and Oil prices have to be to make each strategy best? Illustrative oil and CO2 price impact on choice of EOR practice Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery: Figure 7
  37. 37. Copyright © 2016 by StrategicFit. All rights reserved. 37 • Dramatic CO2 price changes are needed to influence the best EOR practice – oil price is a much stronger driver • Especially in the low price environment there are therefore many stumbling blocks for operators If it looks good then why isn’t it happening? CO2 EOR requires a huge capital investment but there is uncertainty about incremental recovery EOR operator challenge Stumbling blocks IOCs are hugely cutting capital expenditure. Risky, EOR work cannot compete and is dropped. Will NOCs lead? Where do we get CO2? There is rarely a stable supply and it is not a tradable commodity Government support is needed for carbon capture but is fickle e.g. UK CCS project cancellation. How can we deliver projects reliably and at low cost? Without projects the industry doesn’t get technology, supply chain & infrastructure talent/ experience to get costs down
  38. 38. © OECD/IEA 2016 Emissions reduction potential and policy barriers to EOR+ Sean MCCOY Energy Analyst International Energy Agency 38IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  39. 39. © OECD/IEA 2016 The net emissions impact of CO2-EOR is contentious CO2-EOR is “no more a climate solution than drilling in ultra- deepwater, hydro-fracking, or drilling in the Arctic Ocean.” – Greenpeace  Multiple studies have looked at the emissions impact of CO2-EOR operations, e.g.: Aycaguer et al., 2001; Khoo & Tan, 2006; Suebsiri et al., 2006; Jaramillo et al., 2009; Falitnson & Guner, 2011; Wong et al., 2013; Cooney et al., 2015  On first inspection, studies seem to reach different conclusions; however, they make very different choices of boundaries, approaches and assumptions  They have been based on limited data from real operations 39IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  40. 40. © OECD/IEA 2016 Important observations from past life-cycle assessment research 1. Emissions depend on boundaries: a) Including combustion emissions from oil makes business-as-usual (BAU) CO2-EOR a net emitter b) Changes to design and operation of BAU CO2-EOR could decrease the CO2 footprint 2. If energy-related emissions that would otherwise be produced from a functionally equivalent system are displaced, CO2-EOR reduces emissions 3. Emissions reduction efficiency is a function of energy displacement and CO2 utilization a) Displacement of CO2-intensive power and oil results in a larger emissions reduction than would otherwise occur IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 40
  41. 41. © OECD/IEA 2016 The boundaries used to assess emissions from CO2-EOR matter 41 CO2-EOR Operations Crude Oil Transport Petroleum Refining Petroleum Product Transport and Use Fuel or Feedstock Supply Chain Production Process with CO2 Capture CO2 Transport Product Transport and Use The emissions, to what they can be allocated, and the way in which they are allocated depends heavily on the boundaries (Skone, 2013) IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  42. 42. © OECD/IEA 2016 Regardless of boundaries, storing more CO2 per barrel is beneficial for emissions 42 CO2-EOR Operations Crude Oil Transport Petroleum Refining Petroleum Product Transport and Use -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 Conventional+ Advanced+ Maximum Net Emissions (tCO2/bbl) Petroleum Product Displacement* IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  43. 43. © OECD/IEA 2016 Widespread EOR+ will impact the price and demand for oil 1. How much production is displaced by CO2-EOR? 2. How much additional production results from CO2-EOR? 3. What is the resulting net impact on emissions? 43IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  44. 44. © OECD/IEA 2016 Under the IEA 6DS scenario, about 20% of production would be additional  More costly production is displaced: this is often, but not always, more carbon intensive (Gordon et al., 2015)  Hence, we assume a “like-for-like” displacement. 44IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  45. 45. © OECD/IEA 2016 With displacement, even Conventional EOR+ can deliver a benefit 45 CO2-EOR Operations Crude Oil Transport Petroleum Refining Petroleum Product Transport and Use Petroleum Product Displacement* -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 Conventional+ Advanced+ Maximum Net Emissions (tCO2/bbl)*Conventional crude of about 470 kgCO2/bbl (Gordon et al., 2015); 80% displacement. IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  46. 46. © OECD/IEA 2016 Three main challenges for EOR+ 1. Expanding the use of EOR – regardless of the “+” 2. Encouraging adoption of practices to “store” CO2 consistent with the requirements of the climate change mitigation objectives 3. Utilizing more CO2 as part of the EOR extraction process. Important to note that there are other, more challenging legal issues that exist in the US 46IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  47. 47. © OECD/IEA 2016 Expanding the use of CO2-EOR Problem: CO2-EOR projects may be relatively unattractive from a financial perspective because: 1. CO2-EOR requires a large capital investment late in the life of a field – particularly for offshore projects. 2. The increased recovery from CO2-EOR is captured over a long period of time and, thus, its NPV is diminished. 3. Each application of CO2-EOR is unique and requires costly field pilot tests to optimise. Solution: Changes to fiscal regime, provision of tax credits 47IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  48. 48. © OECD/IEA 2016 Ensuring effective storage through CO2-EOR Problem: Little incentive to undertake the additional activities and reporting that make EOR+ Solution: Regulatory requirements for the “+” activates whenever emissions are being avoided and: 1. Developing the appropriate regulations for EOR+ 2. Providing support to test, de-risk, and build experience with needed technologies 3. Resolve legal barriers that limit storage through CO2-EOR (e.g., preference for oil production over CO2-storage) 48IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  49. 49. © OECD/IEA 2016 Using more CO2 per barrel Problem: Emissions reduction benefits are maximized when more CO2 is used per barrel of oil recovered. Solution: Let the market do the work: 1. Declining supply costs of CO2 or increasing prices of oil – ceteris paribus – should lead to increased consumption of CO2 by an EOR operator. 2. Pricing of CO2 emissions or comparable regulatory interventions should expand the supply of CO2 and drive down prices. 49IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  50. 50. © OECD/IEA 2016 Comments and perspectives on EOR+ Per Ivar KARSTAD Manager, CO2 Storage and EOR Research and Technology Statoil 50IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  51. 51. © OECD/IEA 2016 Comments and perspectives on EOR+ Steven CARPENTER Director, Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute School Of Energy Resources University of Wyoming 51IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  52. 52. www.uwyo.edu/eori/52 U. S. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage From "Next Generation" CO2-EOR Technology*
  53. 53. www.uwyo.edu/eori/53 Non-scientific CO2-EOR Issues EOR Potential in Wyoming (and US)… …hampered by migratory bird protection and permitting on State and Federal lands
  54. 54. www.uwyo.edu/eori/54 Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute: Steven Carpenter, Director steven.carpenter@uwyo.edu +1-513-460-0360 (cell) Casper, WY 2435 King Boulevard Suite 140 Casper, WY 82604 307-315-6442 Laramie, WY Department 4068 1000 E. University Ave. Laramie, WY 82071 307-766-2791 Thank you!
  55. 55. © OECD/IEA 2016 Three take-away points from today’s webinar 1. Storing CO2 through EOR, that is EOR+, makes economic sense 2. There is substantial global technical potential for storing CO2 through EOR+, and to increase recovery from aging oil fields 3. Advanced EOR+ can result in emissions reductions even when considering combustion of oil – and displacement effects can further increase this benefit. 55IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  56. 56. © OECD/IEA 2016 Questions & Answers Thank-you! Download the report at: http://tinyurl.com/IEA-EOR- Report 56IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
  57. 57. © OECD/IEA 2013 References Aycaguer, A.-C., M. Lev-On and A. M. Winer (2001). "Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions with Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects:  A Life Cycle Assessment Approach." Energy & Fuels 15(2): 303- 308. Azzolina, N. A., D. V. Nakles, C. D. Gorecki, W. D. Peck, S. C. Ayash, L. S. Melzer and S. Chatterjee (2015). "CO2 storage associated with CO2 enhanced oil recovery: A statistical analysis of historical operations." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 37(0): 384-397. Cooney, G., J. Littlefield, J. Marriott and T. J. Skone (2015). "Evaluating the Climate Benefits of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Life Cycle Analysis." Environmental Science & Technology 49(12): 7491-7500. Faltinson, J. E. and B. Gunter (2011). "Net CO2 Stored in North American EOR Projects." Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 50(7): pp. 55-60. Gordon, D., A. Brandt, J. Bergerson and J. Koomey (2015). Know Your Oil: Creating a Global Oil- Climate Index. Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Jaramillo, P., W. M. Griffin and S. T. McCoy (2009). "Life Cycle Inventory of CO2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System." Environmental Science and Technology 43(21): 8027-8032. Khoo, H. H. and R. B. H. Tan (2006). "Life Cycle Investigation of CO2 Recovery and Sequestration." Environmental Science and Technology 40(12): 4016-4024. Kuuskraa, V. and M. Wallace (2014). "CO2-EOR set for growth as new CO2 supplies emerge." Oil & Gas Journal 112(4). Skone, T. (2013). “The Challenge of Co-Product Management for Large-Scale Energy Systems: Power, Fuel and CO2.” Presentation to LCA XIII, Orlando, FL. 2 October 2013. Suebsiri, J., M. Wilson and P. Tontiwachwuthikul (2006). "Life-Cycle Analysis of CO2 EOR on EOR and Geological Storage through Economic Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis Using the Weyburn Unit as a Case Study." 45(8): 2483-2488. Wong, R., A. Goehner and M. McCulloch (2013). Net Greenhouse Gas Impact of Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Calgary, AB, Pembina Institute. 57IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016

×