View
2.435
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
© OECD/IEA 2016
Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery
International Energy Agency Webinar
14 January 2016
© 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
© 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 (RystadEnergy)
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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Introduction and motivations
Kamel BEN NACEURDirector, Sustainability, Technology & OutlooksInternational Energy Agency
4IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© OECD/IEA 2016
The IEA at a glance
Inter-governmental body founded in 1974; currently 29 Member Countries
Provides policy advice and energy securitycoordination
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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Energy technology collaboration
IEA’s Energy Technology Network includes 39 Energy Technology Collaboration Programs
Independent organisationsproviding technology input to IEA analysis
6IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© OECD/IEA 2016
CCS is an essential part of a low-carbon portfolio of technologies
Increased ambition of the Paris agreement requireslarger 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
© 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Basis for the EOR+ assessment and key results
Sean MCCOYEnergy AnalystInternational Energy Agency
9IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© 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. CO2pipelines)
IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016 10
© 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
© 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Use of CO2-EOR has been growing steadily
13IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
Data: Kuuskra & Wallace,2014
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
scenarios19IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© OECD/IEA 2016
EOR+ can deliver emissions reductions, but will need supportive policyEmissions
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” CO2consistent 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Technical potential for EOR+
Nils-Henrik BJURSTRØMSenior Project Manager, Consulting Services and Head of exploration analysisRystad Energy
21IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
The chart outlines the processthat identifies candidate fields forCO2 storage during CO2-EOR+and calculates CO2 storagepotential.The starting point is all discoveredoil and gas fields in the world.Relevant data for all fields that areeither abandoned, currentlyproducing or expected to startproduction before 2025, aremoved into an excel book wherethe screening takes place.The candidates for CO2-EOR+are the fields that match thescreening criteria (see details onthe following pages andappendix). Additional productionpotential and CO2 storagepotential are then calculated perfield. The calculated data isimported back into UCube andmade available for further analysisthrough the Cube browser userinterface. Data on the largestfields in terms of storage potentialper USGS province is exported toexcel 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 potentialper field
Apply storage potential calculation
Additional UCube value items
Ucu
beR
ysta
d En
ergy
Ups
trea
m D
atab
ase
Exce
l
UCube
Excel tables with top 10 fields per producing USGS province
Right diagram illustrates thecalculation of scores for miscibleand immiscible flooding..The Minimum Miscibility Pressure(MMP) is calculated from crudeAPI and reservoir temperature.The asset is suitable for miscibleCO2 flooding if the reservoirpressure is larger than the MMP.The final score is the product ofthe individual scores for the threeadditional criteria.The initial gas/oil criterium is usedto ensure that the candidate fieldsdo not have gas cap or significantvolumes of associated gas.The criterium for remaining oilsaturation comes from literaturestudy, and the criterium foreffective mobility/viscosity comesfrom physical considerations.
The effective mobility screeningcriteria is based on the Paul andLake model of mobility ratio ofmiscible flooding being a productof effective mobility, heterogeneityfactor and gravity factor***. Noinformation about gravity orheterogeneity is available, so theeffective permeability ratio will beused as a proxy for mobility ratio.
Screening process
MMP
APITemperature
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
Right table summarizes theparameters used to calculate theadditional production and CO2storage potential for the four CO2-EOR practices discussed in theintroduction chapter.
Additional production is calculatedas a percentage of original oil inplace (OOIP), and CO2 storage iscalculated as additionalproduction times storage capacityper additional barrel.
The storage capacity is assumedto be proportional to CO2 densityat reservoir conditions.Right scatterplot shows calculatedCO2 density per candidate fieldfor CO2-EOR.
The extra investments in themaximum storage practices are inthis study assumed to have effecton storage only. A large part ofthe extra investments will likelytake place after productioncessation.
More details about the storagecapacity calculations are given inthe appendix.
CO2 storage capacity = (Additional production) x (CO2 sequestered per additional barrel)
Conventional EOR+
AdvancedEOR+
Maximum storageEOR+
Immiscible
Additional production(% of OOIP)
6,5 % 13% 13% 13%
CO2 storage capacityat 1500 m(Tonne per additional bbl)
0,3 0,6 0,9 0,65
Right char show global CO2storage potential split byonshore/offshore.
In total, 71% of potential belongsto onshore fields.
114 Gt out of the 390 Gt totalstorage capacity is in offshorefields.
70% of storage potential belongs to onshore fields
CO2 storage potential split by onshore/offshore Gigatonnes
1458
87114
276
49
196
29418
71 390
Conventional EOR+ Maximumstorage
Immiscible Missing data Total
OnshoreOffshore
71%
Right bar chart shows CO2storage potential per geographicalregion by CO2-EOR practices.
Middle East and Russia represent58% of the global potential whileNorth Africa and Central Asiaaccounts for 11% and 6% ofglobal potential, respectively.
Central Asia has higher fraction offields with potential for immiscibleflooding than other regions.
More than half of CO2 storage potential is in Middle East and Russia
CO2 storage potential per geographical regionGigatonnes
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%
Global storage potential map
High confidence scoreMedium confidence score
Key
© OECD/IEA 2016
Illustrative project-level economics
Chris JONESSenior ConsultantStrategicFit
28IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
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 0.3Advanced EOR+ 13 0.6
Max Storage 13 0.9
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
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
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+/MaxStorageAnnual Purchase CO2 -Conventional EOR+
Incremental Oil Production
Recycled CO2
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 CO2would 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
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
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
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
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 blocksIOCs 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Emissions reduction potential and policy barriers to EOR+
Sean MCCOYEnergy AnalystInternational Energy Agency
38IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Important observations from past life-cycle assessment research1. 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
© 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 Processwith 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Regardless of boundaries, storing more CO2per 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Comments and perspectives on EOR+
Per Ivar KARSTADManager, CO2 Storage and EOR Research and TechnologyStatoil
50IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© OECD/IEA 2016
Comments and perspectives on EOR+
Steven CARPENTERDirector, Enhanced Oil Recovery InstituteSchool Of Energy ResourcesUniversity of Wyoming
51IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
www.uwyo.edu/eori/52
U. S. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage From "Next Generation" CO2-EOR Technology*
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
www.uwyo.edu/eori/54
Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute:
Steven Carpenter, Director steven.carpenter@uwyo.edu+1-513-460-0360 (cell)
Casper, WY2435 King BoulevardSuite 140Casper, WY 82604307-315-6442
Laramie, WYDepartment 40681000 E. University Ave.Laramie, WY 82071307-766-2791
Thank you!
© 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
© OECD/IEA 2016
Questions & Answers
Thank-you!
Download the report at:
http://tinyurl.com/IEA-EOR-Report
56IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
© OECD/IEA 2013
ReferencesAycaguer, 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 CO2through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Calgary, AB, Pembina Institute.
57IEA EOR+ Webinar, 14 January 2016
Recommended