Innovation Energy: Futuristic Perspectives on CO2-EOR Technologies - Research Paper Example

?Innovation Energy: Futuristic Perspectives on CO2-EOR Technologies Introduction Whether innovation in technology reduces a nations’ dependence on oil is a challenging issue. Innovation in oil can provide solution to geopolitical and environmental issues, boosting the demand to speed up innovation in energy technology. It is possible with the “next generation” advances in different energy producing sectors such as CO2-EOR, the “next generation” technology based on recovering oil from natural pressure and by measuring the minimum miscibility pressure with CO2 (IRI, 2003). The Statement of the Problem The biggest issue is know whether CO2-EOR technology, one of the leading “next generation” technologies in enhancing the oil recovery potential with CO2 fulfills the futuristic concerns. CO2 has been a major cause of concern for creating greenhouse effect related to environment. Mitigating the risks associated with excessiveCO2 by injecting it underneath the oil fields fortunately is being used in recovering oil. Whether it is cost effective technology or not is another significant cause of concern. Some of the success stories in leveraging from the CO2-EOR innovation satisfy the quest for knowledge on different aspects through this writing. Definition of Term Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)EOR is also known as tertiary oil recovery. It follows primary recovery (oil recovered by the natural pressure in the reservoir) and secondary recovery (using water injection). Out of different EOR technologies, CO2 flooding technology is discussed and analyzed. Theoretical Framework A five part theoretical framework would be used to measure the CO2 stocking capacity and EOR capacity of domestic oil reservoirs, which are: gathering and updating the Leading Oil Reservoirs Database; (2) assessing the minimum miscibility pressure for using CO2 -EOR; employing minimum miscibility pressure and other parameters to find reservoirs suitable for CO2-EOR; computing oil production by using “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology; and taking the latest cost and economic model. Significance of the Study In the line of many innovative energy concepts for various energy producing resources, the study on enhancing oil production is very crucial, as it serves two purposes at a time, which are drilling oil from reservoirs economically and efficiently and at the same time injecting CO2 underneath the depleted reservoirs. The importance of the study becomes more crucial as it is done on a natural resource that can not last for ever. Efficient and economical exploration and drilling of the oil reserves can play a significant part in this direction. Background of the Study - Overall history of the subject area Innovative energy challenges can be better managed through collaborative efforts for leveraging expertise to be used in speeding up the development and usage of innovative energy and technology. Such collaborations to resolve energy challenges at different state, nation, and global levels need to be supported. Among a number of research initiatives is the Hybrid Power System, which promises high-efficiency and low carbon footprint. Such successful initiatives can decrease dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation while at the same time enabling the capture and sequestration of CO2. Carbon sequestration (CO2 capture followed by permanent storage) is a dependable electrochemical technique to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from large source points. CO2 capture needs to be energy and cost-efficient to reduce the cost effect (NETL, 2011). Taking the US innovative energy scenario for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 EOR), there are 1,200 reservoirs in the down 48 states suitable for CO2 EOR. Against the expected crude oil market cost of $85 each barrel, these reservoirs have the potential of 24 billion barrels to be exploited. Future production from CO2 EOR can increase to 60 billion barrels. This uncovers a huge untapped resource via CO2 capture technology, which is equal to 60-90 GW of coal-fired plants with 90% capture required to add to EOR floods (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). The CO2 EOR technologies are the “Next Generation” potentially attainable with continuous investments in R&D. Before going ahead, it is significant to elaborate the concept of “Next Generation” CO2 enhanced oil recovery, its advantages to the U.S. economy and energy safety. In brief, the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR includes four important milestones in technology: Improvements in currently used miscible CO2-EOR technology, Superior near miscible CO2-EOR technology, Usage of CO2-EOR to residual oil zones (ROZs),3,4,5 Deployment of CO2-EOR in offshore oil fields. The Current and Future Perspective on CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery The Present Status of CO2-EOR The state-of-the-art technology based on CO2 EOR is being employed specifically in the Permian Basin of West Texas, the Gulf Coast and the Rockies (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). ??CO2-EOR presently produces nearly 281,000 barrels of oil each day in the U.S., which is parallel to 6% of U.S. crude oil production. CO2-EOR has been going on for many decades, beginning first of all from the Permian Basin and increasing latest to 114 CO2-EOR projects presently run in many areas of the country. Today, the huge availability of the CO2 neded for EOR comes from natural sources, such as McElmo Dome in New Mexico and Jackson Dome in Mississippi. These natural sources are strengthened by limited, but increasing sources of anthropogenic CO2. A strong network of pipelines provides logistics for CO2 from natural CO2 deposits and gas processing plants to the Denver City Hub. Still, the topmost hurdle to transporting increased levels of CO2-EOR production is insufficient supply of required CO2. ?The biggest singular source of anthropogenic CO2 employed for EOR is the capture of 340 MMcfd (6.6 MMmt/yr) of CO2 from the gas processing plant at La Barge in Western Wyoming. This is accompanied by the “poster child” for incorporating huge quantity of CO2-EOR with CCS -- the capture of 150 MMcfd (~3MMmt/yr) of CO2 from the Northern Great Plains Gasification plant in Beulah, North Dakota and its transfer through a 200 mile cross-border CO2 pipeline, to the two EOR projects at the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada. New CO2 pipelines have lately been put on-line, which include Denbury’s 320 mile Green Pipeline beside the Gulf Coast, and Occidental Petroleum’s new $850 million Century natural gas/CO2 processing plant and pipeline located in West Texas. The projected Denbury (Encore) pipeline (connected to the Lost Cabin gas plant in Wyoming) is expected to become operational by 2012. These new additions will greatly increase the accessibility and use of CO2 in domestic oil fields, paving the way for increased oil production from CO2-EOR. For example, Occidental Petroleum proposes the working of the Century CO2 plant to increase its Permian Basin oil recovery by 50,000 barrels a day within 5 years (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). The Future Perspective of CO2-EOR Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage: Traditional (“Leading”) Pay Regions of Oil Fields. The appraisal of oil recovery and CO2 stocking capacity fixed has been based on a database of more than 6,300 domestic oil reservoirs, explaining for three-quarters of U.S. oil resources. The research finds 1,858 big oil reservoirs with 366 billion barrels of original oil in-place (487 billion barrels of original oil in-place when estimated to national totals) as conducive for CO2-EOR (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). These big oil reservoirs were simulated for CO2–based enhanced oil recovery employing ARI’s version of the efficient reservoir simulator PROPHET2. The quantity of CO2 stocking capacity offered by oil fields conducive for CO2-EOR was then examined using “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology and economics (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). The research set forth two oil recovery and CO2 stocking types -- “Technical Potential” (without weighing in prices and costs) and “Economic Potential” (the quantity of oil the industry could recover and the quantity of CO2 industry could purchase (and stock) at a particular oil price and CO2 market price). The quantity of technically producible oil using “Next Generation” CO2-EOR is 136.6 billion barrels. The CO2 quantity related to this technically producible oil is 45.4 billion metric tons. The volume of economically recoverable oil (at an oil price of $85/B, CO2 costs of $40/Mt and a 20% before tax financial return) is 67.2 billion barrels. The CO2 demand related to this economically producible oil is 19.9 billion metric tons. Nearly 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 demand for CO2-EOR is assumed to be served from natural gas processing plants and natural sources of CO2, fulfilling a demand of 17.6 billion metric tons from CO2 emissions captured by electric energy and other industrial units (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Oil Production and CO2 Stocking: Residual Oil Zone (“ROZ”) No study background on “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology can be comprehensive until an introductory knowhow of the huge stocks of extra oil that remains in the residual oil zone (ROZ) is conducted. It is calculated that the oil producing capacity by using CO2-EOR in the ROZ, below 56 big, available Permian Basin oil fields, is 11.9 billion barrels of technically producible oil. This promises CO2 stocking limit of 4.8 billion metric tons. Extra technically producible ROZ oil resources equal to 4.4 billion barrels and promise 1.7 billion metric tons of CO2 stocking limits remain to be exploited below the 13 oil fields in the Big Horn and below 20 oil fields in the Williston basins. The economic potential of producing CO2-EOR in residual oil zones for this research has not been a part of the study (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Literature Review -- CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery The CO2-EOR concept of energy efficiency has been in use for the last three decades. In 2003, the US CO2-EOR oil production was 206 thousand barrels a day (Moritis, 2004). It was equal to 31% of total US enhanced oil recovery, or near to 0.25% of oil recovery worldwide. 32 Mt CO2 each year was used from natural resources and 11 Mt from industrial processes. There are many CO2-EOR projects outside the USA. CO2 EOR has become an established technology but the purpose of developing this technology has been an increase in oil production in stead of CO2 stocking. Therefore, it has necessitated the need of storing CO2. EOR can increase oil recovery greatly. The extra production by using the CO2- EOR technology amounts to 8-15% of the total quantity of original oil production, which adds to the overall production by 50% for an average oil field. Oil recovery can further enhance depending on the geology of the oil field and the oil category to the extent and limit of 25-100% but CO2-EOR technology can not be used in all types of oil fields. A rough data on Norway indicates an increase in oil recovery via EOR by 300 million m3 (Mathiassen 2003), which is equal to nearly 10% of recovery to date and the rest of the reserves (IEA 2002a). Considering this input,there should be no doubt over the huge increase in oil recovery via the CO2-EOR Given this increase, CO2 EOR can increase the long-term conventional oil supply substantially. Another benefit that can accrue from the usage of CO2-EOR is balancing the cost of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) from the EOR income. Detailed Study It needs a temperature of nearly 120°C for CO2 to mix with oil (miscible flood). Oil replaces CO2 at increased temperature (immiscible flood oil). A miscible flood is more beneficial than an immiscible flood, as it adds on to increasing the oil recovery factors. As there are material limitations for CO2 EOR, a detailed field appraisal is mandatory to measure its advantages properly. The CO2 stock in case of miscible EOR ranges from 2.4 to 3 tonnes of CO2 each tonne of oil recovered. Calculation for stock potentials differ greatly from a few Gigatonnes (Gt) to many hundred Gigatonnes of CO2, counting on how many of the cost and geological limitations exist. The total stock limit (the total quantity that can be stocked over the whole period up to that year) increments with time as EOR can be used to more consumed oil fields. In a latest study, 420 ‘early opportunities’ for CO2 EOR projects were found, where capture sources and consumed oil fields are within 100 km distance and EOR could begin in the next years. Considering nearly 1 Mt CO2 stock each year per project, this indicates about 0.5 Gt/yr of stock capacity (Bergen et al., 2004). Global perspective for CO2-EOR is not bright as oil fields are scattered in only a number of regions such as Middle East and Former Soviet Union (FSU). Point sources of CO2 in these regions are at a distance, and there is competition with other EOR technologies. For leveraging from the CO2-EOR technology, CO2 needs to be the best alternative from oil production perspective, particularly for heavy oil, and for oil fields with a significant gas cap. The quantum of CO2 EOR in total EOR has been increasing fast during the last two decades. There could be immense potential of such CO2-EORbased technology alternative for global oil fields given the in plenty availability of CO2 at reduced cost. In the 1980s the cost of CO2 was more than 1 million USD each site, which currently has reduced to less than half of it. Costs can be divided into capital costs (about 0.8 USD/bbl), operating costs (2.7 USD/bbl), royalties taxes and insurance (3.6 USD/bbl) and CO2 costs (3.25 USD/bbl) (Kinder Morgan, 2002). Injection wells comprise the bulk of the capital costs for stock. In the case of consumed oil Wells, drilling of new CO2 injection wells is crucial for eliminating the risk of a blowout because of using damaged production wells (Over et al., 1999). Presentation and Analysis of Findings Gathering the Leading Oil Reservoirs Database There are more than 6,300 reservoirs according to the Oil Reservoir Database, accounting for 75% of the oil awaited to be finally recovered in the U.S. by primary and secondary oil production processes. Great effort has been put in to design a correct, quantitatively relevant database that has all of the crucial data, formats and interfaces to carry on the study to: (1) take a correct measure of the size of the earlier and left-over oil in-place; (2) dependably view the reservoirs as to their amenability for miscible and immiscible CO2-EOR; and, (3) provide support with the CO2-PROPHET Model the crucial input data for computing CO2 injection needs and oil production (Kuuskraa et al.,2011). Computing Minimum Miscibility Pressure The miscibility of a reservoir’s oil with injected CO2 is an activity of pressure, temperature and the mixture of the reservoir’s oil. The study’s method to measuring whether a reservoir’s oil is miscible with CO2, on the fixed temperature and given oil mix, is to decide whether the reservoir can bear enough pressure to get miscibility. To decide the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) for any given reservoir, the study employed the Cronquist correlation. This concept decides MMP based on reservoir temperature and the molecular weight (MW) of the pentanes and heavier fractions of the reservoir oil, as set forth below: MMP = 15.988*T (0.744206+0.0011038*MW C5+) Where: T is Temperature in °F, and MW C5+ is the molecular weight of pentanes and laborious fractions in the reservoirs oil (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Testing Reservoirs for CO2-EOR The basic testing steps involved finding the deeper oil reservoirs that had enough high oil gravity. A minimum reservoir depth of 2,500 to 3,000 feet, at the mid-point of the reservoir, is used to ensure the reservoir could take high pressure CO2 injection. A minimum oil gravity of 17.5 oAPI is employed to make sure the reservoir’s oil has enough flexibility, without any thermal injection. The next step is to compare the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) to the maximum permissible pressure. The maximum pressure is decided using a pressure slope of 0.6 to 0.7 psi/foot, contingent upon the region. If the minimum miscibility pressure is below the maximum injection pressure, the reservoir is typed as a miscible flood candidate. Oil reservoirs that do not test positively for miscible CO2-EOR are chosen for retaining by near miscible CO2-EOR (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Computing Oil Recovery CO2-PROPHET was employed to compute incremental oil recovered using “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology because: CO2-PROPHET generates contours for easy flow between injection and production wells, The model accomplishes oil displacement and production computing beside the set contours. (A finite difference routine is used for oil displacement computing). Even with these traits, it is significant to find that CO2-PROPHET is still basically a “screening-type” model, and lacks some of the crucial traits, such as gravity overturn and grouping changes to liquid phases, found in more updated reservoir simulators. More vast measurements of CO2-EOR would require employing a grouping, 3D reservoir simulator (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Arranging the Cost and Economics Models An elaborated, latest CO2-EOR Cost Model was created for the study, which included costs for: (1) drilling new wells or working anew on current wells; (2) arranging ground equipment for new wells; (3) installing the CO2 recycle plant; (4) designing a CO2 projected-line from the main CO2 torso-line to the oil field; and (5) other costs. The cost model also includes cost on routine well operation and maintenance (O&M), for carrying costs of the recovered fluids, and for costs of capturing, desegregating and repeated injection of the produced CO2. The economic model employed by the study is an industry standard cash flow model that can be practiced on either a design or a field-wide basis. The economic model includes provisions for royalties, breaching and ad valorem taxes, and any oil gravity and market situation discounts (or premiums) from the “marker” oil price (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). The major inputs and assumptions of the economic model are: Oil Price - - $85 per barrel (WTI reference price). The oil price chosen for the analysis is relevant with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook oil price for years 2012 and 2013. CO2 Purchase Cost - - $40 per metric ton (delivered at pressure to the oil field). The CO2 purchase cost chosen is relevant with historical ratios linked to CO2 cost to oil price using a value of 2.5% (with a range of 2% to 3%) of the oil price to compute the CO2 cost price in $/Mcf. For example at an $85 per barrel oil price, the CO2 purchase price would be $2.12/Mcf similar to nearly $40 per metric ton. Financial ObstacleRate - - 20% ROR (before tax) Royalties - - 17.5% State Breach/Ad Valorem Taxes - - State related CO2 Reinjection Cost - - 1% of oil price (for compression and treatment) CAPEX and OPEX - - Related to particular state and depth (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Other Considerations Based on talks with operators, the study included the below extra traits into this version of the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Model: The analysis assumes that the thinner, corner regions of the oil field, calculated to be 20% of the field and reservoir area and 10% of the OOIP, will not be practical for usage of CO2-EOR. The oil production model takes it for granted that the residual oil left in the center space after CO2 injection is 8%. The quantity of CO2 injected is up to 1.5 HCPV. The narrowed down WAG ratio includes a start-up big slug of CO2 plus water for quality control. An economic truncation algorithm (comparing yearly income with yearly expenditure) stops project functioning and CO2 injection once yearly cash flow becomes negative. The analysis takes it for granted that 25% of the injected CO2 gets faded in water or is lost outside the design field (Kuuskraa et al., 2011) Conclusion Concluding Statement Selecting from numerous technological innovations in energy ranging from oil exploration, drilling, nuclear, renewable, and hydrogen among others to solar, wind, geothermal power, and bio-fuels , CO2-EOR, the “next generation” technology based on recovering oil from natural pressure and by measuring the minimum miscibility pressure with CO2 has proved to be robust in futuristic perspectives to fulfill the future energy needs. Analysis The industry experts have given a positive review on the methodology and outcomes of the CO2-EOR studies. Experts offered many brilliant tips on particularly bettering the methodology areas (e.g., current increased costs of CO2 pipelines), in totality, the industry experts showed satisfaction, as remarked by one of them, “If we were asked to do this, we probably would have done it the same way.” The industry critics found the oil producing efficiencies of 15% to 20% of OOIP for oil reservoirs geologically conducive for CO2. In totality, the NETL/ARI outcomes for state-of-the art CO2-EOR provide 17.5% production of OOIP, after abandoning oil reservoirs not suitable for miscible CO2-EOR. The industry experts quoted examples of CO2-EOR projects that were producing 17% to 18% of OOIP and, with extra reservoir upkeep and technology, were hopeful of taking it further to beyond 20% of OOIP. Two particular remarks were made related to closely monitored oil production efficiencies in actual CO2-EOR floods: • Whiting remarked that their Postle CO2-EOR project is presently set to produce 17% to 18% of OOIP and, with usage of cross-well seismic and increased use of CO2 in chosen designs, the company is hopeful of taking the production efficiency to the mid-twenties. • Denbury noted that their oil production outlooks are for 17% to 18% of OOIP for direct CO2 flooding. By including a WAG process at the end of the direct CO2-flood, Denbury is hopeful of increasing oil productions to 20% OOIP. Denbury particularly gave the example of West Heidelberg oil field which has the potential of 18% production of OOIP from CO2-EOR (60% OOIP produced in total). They are pondering over to change this field to a WAG process to further boost oil production. • Whiting states that their long-term outlook is that CO2-EOR strips the light corners from the crude oil (the propane, butane, etc.) leading to increased incremental NGL recovery quantity after the starting of a CO2 flood. Future valuing of the performance of CO2-EOR would leverage from the inclusion of NGL production into total oil production estimates and economics (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Recommendations for Further Study Modeling of the futuristic CO2-EOR can be bettered by improving the injected CO2 to water ratio and using a bigger start-up slug of CO2 or direct CO2 in down permeability oil reservoirs to better the processing rate, and minimize the requirement for “drill down” the design. The CO2 flood should be used on 80% of the reservoir. It will erase the possibility of the low quality corner of the reservoir from flooding. Higher gravity oils can be permitted to become eligible for miscible or approximate miscible CO2 candidates as they attain multi-contact miscibility over time. Presently, lower gravity oil reservoir of 18o to 20o API, are normally typed as immiscible floods, and demoted to low production of the OOIP. Further analysis of the recommendation is required, therefore, for advanced inclusion (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). Other oil resources and recovery from the Residual Oil Zones (ROZs) into “Next Generation” ROZ should be given a thought. It would add to the oil recovery quantity and stock capacity of CO2. Advanced research on the ROZ resources can be beneficial for this domestic oil resource. It is also recommended that marginal oil recovery and costs be used to frame the maximum HCPV of CO2 to be injected in the future study. Further, it is suggested that by using a “combination technology” employing injection besides surfactant slug of low density can result in better oil production efficiency in superficial immiscible flooded CO2-EOR projects. This characteristic needs to be further examined for inclusion. The size of the initial CO2 slug should be increased to 0.4 HCPV before initiating a CO2 WAG. Further attempts for experimentation need to be made to improve upon the CO2 injection and recovery algorithm in PROPHET2 to find feasibility of the increased net CO2 to oil ratio. Different criteria should be developed for various basins for fixing maximum pressure gradient for MMP (minimum miscibility pressure). Further analysis of this recommendation would help the shallower reservoirs to be a miscible CO2 flood rather than processed as an immiscible CO2 flood (Kuuskraa et al., 2011). References Bergen, F. van, J. Gale, K.J. Damen, A.F.B. Wildenborg. (2004). Worldwide selection of early opportunities for CO2-enhanced oil recovery and CO2-enhanced coal bed methane Production. Energy 29, 1611-1621. IEA (2002a), World energy outlook 2002. IEA/OECD. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2002_part2.pdf IRI. (2003). Can new technology reduce oil dependency? Newsletter of Integrity Research Institute, 1 (4). Retrieved from http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/IRINews.html Kinder Morgan. (2002).Rules of thumb. Retrieved from www.kne.com/co2/flood.cfm. Kuuskraa, Vello A., Van Leeuwen, Tyler., Wallace, Matt (2011, July). Report Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR). National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL.) U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf Moritis, G. (2004). EOR continues to unlock oil resources. Oil & Gas Journal, 53-65. Retrieved from http://www.ogj.com/index/current-issue/oil-gas-journal/volume-102/issue-14.html Matthiassen, O.M. (2003). CO2 as injection gas for enhanced oil recovery and estimation of the potential on the Norwegian continental shelf. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.co2.no/download.asp?DAFID=28&DAAID=6 NETL Regional University Alliance (NETL-RUA). 92011). Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/rua/index.html Over, J., Vries, J. de and Stork, J. (1999). Removal of CO2 by storage in the deep underground, chemical utilization and biofixation. Available from http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9789057480140 Read More