Life Cycle Well to Wheels Assessment of GHG Emissions from North American and Imported Crude Oils
Ian Moore – Jacobs Consultancy
Workshop Comparing Approaches to Life Cycle Analysis of Crude Oil
Centre for European Policy Studies Brussels
March 21, 2011
Slide 2
Premise
• GHG regulations will impact crude choice for producing transportation fuels
• Crudes are different
• GHG associated with crude production depends on reservoir and production methods
• GHG from refining depends on crude properties and refining intensity
Slide 3
Agenda
• 2009 AERI Study – Background and project objectives– Methodology– Life Cycle analysis
• Crude production • Upgrading and refining• Life Cycle well-to-wheels fuel cycle
– Observations• New developments
– Changes in worldwide flaring– Advancements in bitumen production technology– EU crude oil pathway LCA
Slide 4
2009 Project Objectives – Fair and Balanced Assessment of Oil Sands vs. Conventional Crude Oils
• Sponsor: Alberta Energy Research Institute – now called Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions (AI-EES) (part of the Government of Alberta, Canada)
• Steering team – Industry– Academia– Government
• Develop a robust life cycle analysis comparison of oil sands versus conventional crudes processed in US
• Address limitations in prior life cycle work by using subject matter expertise and sound technical / engineering approach
• Vet results publicly
Slide 5
Well‐to‐Wheels Life Cycle Assessment
WTW Life Cycle Emissions = WTT + TTW
DefinitionsWell-to-Wheels (WTW)Well-to-Tank (WTT) Tank-to-Wheels (TTW)
WTT TTW
Slide 6
Limitations of Some Prior Life Cycle Analyses
A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California Part 1: Technical Analysis, Project Directors: Alexander E. Farrell, UC Berkeley and Daniel Sperling, UC Davis, 2007
Prior Life Cycle Analyses of Oil Sands vs. Conventional Crude
Prior work shows 14-41% higher WTW emissions for oil sands vs.
“conventional” oil
• Incomplete and out-dated information
• Simplified, generic model representations
• Incomplete well-to-wheels analysis
• Excessive aggregation– No differentiation on crude
properties – No differentiation on refinery
configuration
• Inconsistent boundary conditions
Crudes and refineries are not created equal
0
50
100
150
Conv Crude Oil Oil SandsMining
Oil SandsSAGD
g C
O2e
q / M
J R
efin
ed P
rodu
ct
Fuel ProductionFuel Combustion
Slide 7
Tank to Wheel 78%
Crude Transport
1% Crude Refining
13%
Product Transport
< 0.5%
Crude Production
8%
GHG Contributions from Well‐to‐Wheels Life Cycle Analysis
Source: CARB – Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathway forUltra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) from Average Crude Refined in California, January 2009
Study emphasis is on areas significantly
affected by crude source, type and
quality
Focus of Our Work
Slide 8
Study Focus – Enhance Life Cycle Modeling with Crude Specific Estimates of Energy / GHG Emissions
Incorporate results from rigorous engineering analysis into GREET*
Use ISO 14040 Methodology
Upgrading and Refining• Reflect crude and product variations• Jacobs experience• Rigorous modeling
Crude & Bitumen Production• Specific crudes evaluated• Public & Jacobs data• Rigorous modeling
*GREET: Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation
Slide 9
Crude & Bitumen Systems Considered
Upgrading toSynthetic
CrudeRefining
Finished Gasoline &
Diesel
Bitumen Production• Mining• In-situ
TransportTransport Transport
BitumenProduction• Mining• In-situ
DiluentDiluted Bitumen
Refining Finished Gasoline &
DieselTransport Transport
CrudeProduction Refining
Finished Gasoline &
DieselTransport Transport
Slide 10
Key Crude Production Issues
• Wide variation in specific crude and bitumen production GHG emissions– Crude / bitumen properties– Reservoir characteristics
• Depth • Water to oil ratio• Gas to oil ratio
– Flaring and venting of produced gas– Treatment of produced water and gas– Production method and technology
primary, secondary, tertiary
Public availability of accurate, comprehensive production data is often limited
Slide 11
Crudes Considered Reflect Typical US Basket
Study Crudes• Bachaquero – Venezuela • Maya – Mexico • Arab Medium – Saudi Arabia• Mars – US Gulf Coast • Bonny Light – Nigeria • Kirkuk – Iraq• Kern River – California• Oil Sands Bitumen – Canada
Source: EIA
2007 Average US Crude Basket
Other US17%
Nigeria7%
Mexico9%
Canada11%
US Gulf Coast17%
California4%Saudi
Arabia9%
Venezuela7%
Rest of World13%
Angola3%Iraq
3%
Slide 12
Concept 1 – Crude Oil and Bitumen Properties Lie on a Continuum
• Bitumen is another type of crude oil
• Properties fall on a continuum
• Less light components
• More resid and carbonDusseault, M.B. and Shafiei, A. 2011. Oil Sands. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry,
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Viscosity, cP API° Oil Type
Density, g/cm3
Condensate
45 Light Oil 0.802
>100 20 Heavy Oil Viscous Oil 0.934
10,000 10 Extra Heavy Oil 1.000
>10,000 0 Bitumen/Oil Sands 1.076
Slide 13
Address Key Issues by Modeling Crude Production
FIGURE: RESERVOIR PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ENERGY CONSUMERS FOR RECOVERY OF: Gas Re-injection CompressorOILOIL + WATEROIL + WATER + GAS
ReboilerReboilerReboiler
Water Re-injection PumpDeaeration Water Re-injection PumpDeaeration
Downhole Pump
Dehydration
Separator
Stabilizer
Filtration / Bacteria Removal
Water Re-injection
To LNG Plant
Gas Re-injection
To Stock Tanks
From Oil Reservoir
H2S Processing Claus Plant
CO2 Removal Flare
Sulfur
CO2
SalesFuelEngines
Deaeration
Desalination
Disposal
Gas Lift
Lifing
Separation
Treating
Treating
Reinjection
Reinjection
Disposal
Disposal
FIGURE: RESERVOIR PRODUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ENERGY CONSUMERS FOR RECOVERY OF: Gas Re-injection CompressorOILOIL + WATEROIL + WATER + GAS
ReboilerReboilerReboiler
Water Re-injection PumpDeaeration Water Re-injection PumpDeaeration
Downhole Pump
Dehydration
Separator
Stabilizer
Filtration / Bacteria Removal
Water Re-injection
To LNG Plant
Gas Re-injection
To Stock Tanks
From Oil Reservoir
H2S Processing Claus Plant
CO2 Removal Flare
Sulfur
CO2
SalesFuelEngines
Deaeration
Desalination
Disposal
Gas Lift
Lifing
Separation
Treating
Treating
Reinjection
Reinjection
Disposal
Disposal
Lifing
Separation
Treating
Treating
Reinjection
Reinjection
Disposal
Disposal
Crude Description
Crude Name Generic
Production Rate bpd 545
Properties
API 30.0SG 0.8762
Sulfur wt% 2.0
Heating value LHV
Crude Heating Value GJ/Bbl 5.82
Reservoir CharacteristicsReservoir Pressure psi 3,000Reservoir Temperature °F 200Reservoir Depth ft 5,000
Production CharacteristicsGas/Oil Ratio scf/bbl 1,000Water/Oil Ratio bbl/bbl 10.0Gas Lift NoGas Lift Rate SCFB 0.0Diluent Lift - Use if API below: 25.0
Produced Gas Composition (mol%)Source for Gas Composition DefaultInput Gas Compositon
CH4 mol% 79.74%C2H6 mol% 14.95%C3H8 mol% 4.98%CO2 mol% 0.00%H20 mol% 0.33%
Gas Heating Value - LHV BTU/SCF 1,082Gas Heating Value - LHV w/o CO2 BTU/SCF 1,086
Venting of Produced GasVent Loss % 0.5%Fugitive Loss % 0.5%
Reinjection of Gas and WaterGas Reinjection: % of Gas After Vent/Fugitive % 50.00%CO2 Separaton NoCO2 Reinjection: % % 100.00%Water Reinjection: % of Produced Water % 100.00%Treatment of Reinjected Water YesTreatment of Discharged Water Yes
Disposal of Non-Reinjected GasAmount of Non-Reinjected Gas scf/bbl 500.0
Proportion of Gas to Flare % 1.0%Proportion of CO2 to Flare/Vent % 50.0%
Flaring of Produced Gas% Combusted % 99%% Non-Combusted % 1%
Fuel for Drivers and HeatersDownhole Pump Driver Natural GasWater Reinjection Pump Driver Natural GasCompressor Driver Natural GasFired Heaters Natural GasWater Treatment Natural GasAmine Treater - Fired Heaters Natural GasAmine Treater - Drivers for Motors Natural Gas
• Jacobs crude oil production model used to predict GHG emissions for specific crudes
• Public data supplemented with Jacobs in-house knowledge
• Allows user to evaluate impact of key variables and carry out sensitivities
Variable InputsJacobs Crude Production Model
Water Reinjection
49%
Gas Reinjection
7%
Water Treatment
9%
Gas Treatment
16%
Venting10%
Flaring1%
Misc Energy8%
Lifting0%
CO2e Outputs by Category
Slide 14
Reservoir Characteristics for Conventional Crude Basket in Study
Reservoir Source: Pennwell- Published in Oil & Gas Journal, December 24, 2007 GOR and reservoir pressure, WOR from literatureFlaring data from World Bank: Gas flaring data from A Twelve Year Record of National and Global Gas Flaring Volumes Estimated Using Satellite Data, Final Report to the World Bank, May 30, 2007, and Global Gas Flaring Estimates, NOAA, 2007,
Using World Bank Report Table 4 in this study
From Reservoir Data
Assumed
Petroleum Reservoir
Avg Depth,
Pressure, Thermal Steam to
Oil
Water to Oil
Produced Gas,
Flared Gas(Wrld Bnk Rpt
Table 4)
N2 Injection
ft psi bbl /bbl bbl /bbl scf / bbl (m3 gas/bbl) scf / bbl
Bachaquero 5,100 500 0.5 0.25 90 2.0 -Maya 9,500 1,600 - 3 340 0.6 1,200 Arab Medium 6,100 3,000 - 2.3 650 0.8 -Mars 14,500 5,500 - 5.5 1,040 0.6 -Bonny Light 8,700 4,300 - 2 840 27.0 -Kirkuk 7,500 3,000 - 2 600 11.0 -
Slide 15
Crude Oil Production Carbon Intensity – Before Accounting for Flaring
0
5
10
15
20
Bachaq
uero Maya
ArabMed
MarsBonny L
tKirk
uk Blen
d
Tota
l CO
2e, g
/MJ
of C
rude Nitrogen
Steam
Misc Energy
Gas Treatment
Water Treatment
Gas Reinjection
Water Reinjection
Lifting
Slide 16
Gas Flaring in Crude Production
Nigeria
Iraq
VenezuelaUSAMexicoSaudi Arabia
0 5 10 15 20
CO2e, g/MJ of Crude
Saudi ArabiaMexicoUSAVenezuelaChinaUKKuwaitMalaysiaEgyptIndonesiaLibyaRussiaIranAlgeria QatarOmanIraqKazakhstanAngolaNigeriaGabonUzbekistan
A Twelve Year Record of National and Global Gas Flaring Volumes Estimated Using Satellite Data - Final Report to the World Bank - May 30, 2007
Slide 17
Emissions With Flaring
Using World Bank Report Table 4 for this figure
0
5
10
15
20
Bachaq
uero Maya
ArabMed
MarsBonny L
tKirk
uk Blen
d
Tota
l CO
2e, g
/MJ
of C
rude Nitrogen
Steam
Misc Energy
Flaring
Venting
Gas Treatment
Water Treatment
Gas Reinjection
Water Reinjection
Lifting
Slide 18
Heavy Crude Production Methods
• Bitumen – SAGD – steam assisted gravity drainage
• Primary energy is natural gas to generate steam for injection
• Key parameter is steam to oil ratio: bbls of cold water/bbl of oil
– Mining• Primary energy is diesel fuel to power
equipment• Natural gas and electricity are used to
separate bitumen from clay• Study does not include land use or methane
release in mine preparation– May import or self-generate electricity and
export electricity to the grid• California heavy crude oil
– Uses an older somewhat less efficient thermal method than SAGD
– Primary energy is natural gas
SAGD
CAThermal
Slide 19
Canadian Bitumen Production in 2008
• 1.31 MM BPD total bitumen• 0.73 MM BPD mined bitumen all to upgraders • 0.58 MM BPD in situ (mainly thermal)
production ~ 92% to refining
ERCB - Alberta's Reserves 2008 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2009-2018 – June 10, 2009
Slide 20
Bitumen Range of Steam to Oil Ratio (SOR)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Nexen, Long Lake
CNRL Primrose & W
olf Lake
Shell Peace Rive
r
IMO, Cold Lake
Suncor, F
irebag
JACOS, Hangin
gstone
Petro-Canada, McKay
EnCana, Foster Creek &
Christina Lake
Stea
m to
Oil,
bbl
/ bb
l
Source: EnCana Investor Presentation October 5, 2006 -Original data: EUB Public Domain Data, Jan. 2006 – June 2006
Typical SOR in Canada
Pilot data
Slide 21
Concept 2 ‐ Crude Oil and Bitumen Production Carbon Intensities Overlap
Emission range for heavy crudes overlaps range for some conventional crudes
0
5
10
15
20
Bachaq
uero
Maya
Arab M
edium Mars
Bonny L
ightKirk
ukCA TE
ORBitu
men-S
AGDBitu
men-M
ining
GH
G, g
CO
2e/M
J of
Cru
de/B
it
Venting and FlaringProduction
5 SOR3 SOR
Slide 22
Key Upgrading & Refining Issues
• Crude quality and product requirements impact– Processing complexity– Hydrogen addition– Energy consumption– Product yield and quality– Co-products such as coke
• Refinery configuration and technology – Level of conversion– Product slate
Crude Quality Varies
Hydroskimming Refinery Cracking Refinery
Refining Configurations Vary
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bachaq
ueroKern
Rive
rMay
aArab
MedMarsKirk
ukBonny
LtSCO
Yiel
d on
Cru
de, w
t%
510152025303540
API
C4-NaphthaDistillateGas oilResidAPI
Slide 23
Concept 3 ‐ Refining GHG tracks with API Gravity
• Refining GHG emissions highly dependent on crude gravity
(API = 141.5/density – 131.5)
• Emissions depend on conversion – line will shift up or down depending on conversion
GHG Emissions from High Conversion Refinery
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Crude API
Car
bon
Inte
nsity
, g/M
J of
Cru
de
Slide 24
Concept 4 – Each Product Pays It’s Fair Share of GHG
• Track utilities to intermediate products in each step of refining
• Ensures that products “pay” their fair share of GHG emissions
• Carbon intensity (CI) depends on processing intensity
Product GHG from Refining
Crude: Arab Medium Refinery: High conversion
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
C3 C4Ga
solin
eDi
esel
Coke
GHG, g CO2e
/MJ of Produ
ct
FCC Coke
H2 Plant NaturalGasNatural Gas Fuel
Fuel Gas
Electric Power
Slide 25
Concept 5 – CI of Transport Fuel from Heavy Crude Oils are within 10% ‐ 12% of Those from Conventional Crude Oils
97.0 97.193.3
98.4101.7
96.7
109.5 107.5
102.8
70
80
90
100
110
120
Bachaq
uero Maya
Arab M
edium
MarsBonny
LightKirk
uk B
lend
CA TEORSAGD B
itumen
Mining S
CO - Ckr
Tota
l GH
G, g
CO
2e /
MJ
Gas
olin
e +
Die
sel
Product Substitution
Production
Venting and Flaring
Upgrading
Transport
Refining
Delivery
Vehicle CO2, CH4, N2O
Min
edConventional Crude Thermal
Conventional Crude Range
Slide 26
Observations from 2009 Study
• Rigorous and detailed Life Cycle analysis provides a better understanding of differences between crude oils
• GHG burden for bitumen derived transport fuels is smaller than shown in previous studies
• Life Cycle GHG emissions between bitumen and some conventional crudes overlap
• Continuing effort to reduce GHG burden of bitumen production and refining
Slide 27
Agenda
• 2009 AERI Study – Background and project objectives– Methodology– Life Cycle analysis
• Crude production • Upgrading and refining• Life Cycle well-to-wheels fuel cycle
– Observations• New developments
– Changes in worldwide flaring– Advancements in bitumen production technology– EU crude oil pathway LCA
Slide 28
Flaring Trend is Downward ‐ But Not Everywhere
Russia_Combined
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Estimated
Gas Flared (BCM
)
Nigeria
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Estimated
Gas Flared (BCM
)
Iraq
012345678910
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Estimated
Gas Flared (BCM
)
Angola
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Estimated
Gas Flared (BCM
)
NOAA - http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/flare_docs/
Convert flaring to CO2e, andDivide by crude production to get flaring in terms of CO2e/MJ of Crude
Slide 29
Canadian Bitumen Forecast
CAPP – Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – June 2010
Growth Case - Western Canada Oil Sands & Conventional Production
KB
PD
• Forecast to exceed 3.5 MM BPD in 2025
• Bitumen production methods continually improving
Slide 30
Improvements in Bitumen Production
• SAGD– Better heat integration reduces energy use– Fast SAGD makes better use of heat injected into reservoir– Improved lift technology – use of mechanical lift instead of gas
lift– Better reservoir pressure management – Use of solvents reduces steam required – Improved recovery with polymer flooding– Water reduction and reuse reducing environmental burden
• Mining– Paraffin froth treatment at mine removes significant carbon resid
which improves refining yield and reduces energy and GHG – Mature fine tailings recovery is reducing tailing ponds
Slide 31
Continued Development Driving Down GHG from SAGD
1,500
DownholePumps
(LP SAGD)Minimizing Glycol
Minimizing Stack Loss
Organic Rankine
Cycle
Carbon Capture and
Storage
500 1,000 2,000 2,500
MT CO2 / day
$/MT CO2
$20
Cost
Return
$40
$60
$80
$100
$20
$40
$60
Additional Energy
Reductions to achieve
“Ideal”
$100
$80 4%5%
28%38%
Reductions using improved
Energy Efficiency
New designs reduce SAGD GHG by ~20-25%
Slide 32
Commercial SAGD Production with < 3 SOR Demonstrated
After 9 Months of Operation In 2010
Project Date SOR SORFoster Creek 1998 4.0 2.5Surmont Pilot 1998 5.2 3.5MacKay 2003 3.4 2.5Christina Lake 2003 2.8 2.0Long Lake 2003 11.4 6.9Firebag 2004 7.3 3.3
• SOR depends on reservoir conditions, good design and operation
• SOR below 3 have been demonstrated in commercial practice
• Reducing SOR from 4 to 2 cuts GHG in half
Slide 33
What Next
Former USSR 39%
Angola 2%
Iraq 4%
United Kingdom
4%
Algeria 2%
Other11%
Norway 13%
Libya 9%
Iran 5% Saudi
Arabia 5%
Other Africa2
2% Nigeria
4%
EU Crude Supply in 2009
Gas Flaring in Crude Production
Nigeria
Iraq
Saudi ArabiaMexicoUSAVenezuela
Angola
Algeria IranRussia
Libya
0 5 10 15 20
CO2e, g/MJ of Crude
Saudi ArabiaMexicoUSAVenezuelaChinaUKKuwaitMalaysiaEgyptIndonesiaLibyaRussiaIranAlgeria QatarOmanIraqKazakhstanAngolaNigeriaGabonUzbekistan
• ~50% of EU crude supply is from regions defined by California Air Resources Board as being high carbon intensity regions
• Forthcoming LCA study for Alberta Energy to provide a transparent view of bitumen and other crudes in an EU context– Define crude oil production GHG
for typical crudes including flaring– Define refining GHG using EU
refining configurations– Define oil transport and product
distribution to the EU– Use EU vehicle emissions
• Goal – similar detail and transparency as 2009 AI-EES LCA study
Slide 34
Thank You
