Energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions from thermal enhanced oil recovery

Energy and Fuels

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 4581-4589

  Brandt, Adam R ^a   Unnasch, Stefan ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Life Cycle Associates LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIFORNIA; CARBON INTENSITY; CO-GENERATION; COMBINED CYCLE; ELECTRIC POWER; ELECTRICITY GRIDS; EMISSION RANGE; ENERGY DEMANDS; ENERGY INTENSITY; ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY; FUEL CYCLE; GAS-FIRED; GHG EMISSION; LOWER HEATING VALUE; OIL PRODUCTION; STEAM GENERATION; SUBSURFACE RESERVOIR; VISCOUS HEAVY OIL;

CALORIFIC VALUE; CRUDE OIL; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY MANAGEMENT; ENHANCED RECOVERY; GAS EMISSIONS; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE GASES; HEAVY OIL PRODUCTION; MESH GENERATION; METAL RECOVERY; NATURAL GASOLINE; STEAM; STEAM GENERATORS;

ELECTRIC GENERATORS;

EID: 77955906921     PISSN: 08870624     EISSN: 15205029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ef100410f     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Farrell, A. and Sperling, D.; et al. A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California: Part 1-Technical Analysis; Institute for Transportation Studies: Berkeley, CA, Aug 1, 2007.
2. Farrell, A. and Sperling, D.; et al. A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California: Part 2-Policy Analysis; Institute for Transportation Studies: Berkeley, CA, Aug 1, 2007.
3. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard-Staff Report: Final Statement of Reasons; CARB: Sacramento, CA, Dec 2009.
4. Gerdes, K. J. and Skone, T. J. An Evaluation of the Extraction, Transport and Refining of Imported Crude Oils and the Impact on Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Office of Systems, Analysis, and Planning, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL): Pittsburgh, PA, March 27, 2009; DOE/NETL-2009/1362.
5. Gerdes, K. J. and Skone, T. J. Consideration of Crude Oil Source in Evaluating Transportation Fuel GHG Emissions; National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL): Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.
6. Keesom, W. and Unnasch, S.; et al. Life Cycle Assessment Comparison of North American and Imported Crudes; Jacobs Consultancy and Life Cycle Associates for Alberta Energy Resources Institute: Chicago, IL, July 2009.
7. Rosenfeld, J. and Pont, J.; et al. Comparison of North American and Imported Crude Oil Life Cycle GHG Emissions; TIAX LLC and MathPro, Inc. for Alberta Energy Research Institute: Cupertino, CA, 2009.
8. Larson, R.; Wang, M. Q. World Resour. Rev. 2005, 17 (2) 220-242
9. California Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDC-DOGGR). Summary of Operations: California Oil Fields; CDC-DOGGR: Sacramento, CA, 1966.
10. Rintoul, W. Drilling Ahead: Tapping California's Richest Oil Fields, 1 st ed.; Valley Publishers: Santa Cruz, CA, 1981.
11. Leonard, J. Oil Gas J. 1984, 82 (14) 83
12. Moritis, G. Oil Gas J. 1998, 96 (16) 49
13. Moritis, G. Oil Gas J. 2008, 106, 15
14. Chevron hosts Saudi and Kuwaiti Senior Petroleum Officials at the Onshore PNZ Large Scale Steamflood Pilot Project. http://www.eyeofdubai.com/v1/news/ newsdetail-36174.htm (accessed on Nov 16, 2009).
15. Wang, M. Q. GREET Model 1.8b; Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, 2008; http://www.transportation.anl.gov/publications/transforum/v8/v8n2/greet- 18b.html.
16. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Detailed CA-GREET Pathway for California Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CARBOB) from Average Crude Refined in California; CARB: Sacramento, CA, Feb 27, 2009; p 52.
17. Hong, K. C. Steamflood Reservoir Management: Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery; PennWell Publishing Company: Tulsa, OK, 1994.
18. California Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDC-DOGGR). 2006 Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor; CDC-DOGGR: Sacramento, CA, 2007.
19. Burger, J.; Sourieau, P.; et al. Thermal Methods of Oil Recovery, 3 rd ed.; Gulf Publishing Company: Houston, TX, 1985.
20. Prats, M. Operational aspects of steam injection processes. In Enhanced Oil Recovery: Processes and Operations; Donaldson, E. C.; Chilingarian, G. V., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989.
21. Berry, J. P.; Good, W. K. Cogeneration potential in western Canada. In International Heavy Oil Symposium; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1995; Vol. SPE 30246.
22. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Enhanced Oil Recovery Scoping Study; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, 1999; TR-113836.
23. Wang, M. Q. Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries (plus associated spreadsheet); Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, March 2008.
24. Cengel, Y. A.; Boles, M. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 5 th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2006.
25. Kim, T. S. Energy 2004, 29 (1) 71-85
26. Ganapathy, V. Industrial Boilers and Heat Recovery Steam Generators: Design, Applications and Calculations; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2003.
27. Edwards, R. Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context: Well-to-Tank Report; JRC/CONCAWE/EUCAR: Luxembourg, 2000.
28. Unnasch, S.; Browning, L.; et al. Refinement of Selected Fuel-Cycle Emissions Analyses: Final Report; California Air Resources Board (CARB): Sacramento, CA, 2001.
29. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Detailed CA-GREET Pathway for California Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CARBOB) from Average Crude Refined in California; CARB Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, Feb 27, 2009.
30. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathway for California Average and Marginal Electricity; CARB Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, Feb 27, 2009.
31. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Electric Generator Data-Form EIA 860 Database; EIA: Washington, D.C., 2009.
32. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Existing Generating Units in the United States by State, Company and Plant, 2006; EIA: Washington, D.C., 2009.
33. California Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDC-DOGGR). Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor; CDC-DOGGR: Sacramento, CA, 2005.
34. Charpentier, A. D.; Bergerson, J. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4 (014005) 14
35. Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W. M.; McCoy, S. T. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (21) 8027-8032
36. Brandt, A. R. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (19) 7489-7495
37. Brandt, A. R. Energy Fuels 2009, 23 (12) 6253-6258
38. Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W. M.; Matthews, H. S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (20) 7559-7565
39. Green, D. W.; Willhite, G. P. Enhanced Oil Recovery; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, 1998.
40. California Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDC-DOGGR). California Oil and Gas Fields; CDC-DOGGR: Sacramento, CA, 1982, -1998; Vol. 1 -3, p 1500.
41. Brandt, A. R.; Boak, J.; Burnham, A. K. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil shale derived liquid fuels. In Oil Shale: A Solution to the Liquid Fuels Dilemma; Ogunsola, O., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C., 2010; ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1032, pp 219 -248.