Public Release: 17-Jul-2017
Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences
Even oilfields aren’t immune to the ravages of time: A new study finds that as some of the world’s largest oilfields age, the energy required to keep them operating can rise dramatically even as the amount of petroleum they produce drops.
Failing to take the changing energy requirements of oilfields into account can cause oilfield managers or policymakers to underestimate the true climate impacts, Stanford scientists warn.
The new findings, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, have implications for long-term emissions and climate modeling, as well as climate policy. “Current climate and energy system models typically don’t explore the impacts of oil reservoir depletion in any detail,” said study co-author Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences. “As oilfields run low, emissions per unit of oil increase. This should be accounted for in future modeling efforts.”
An accurate estimate
In the new study, Stanford postdoctoral researcher Mohammad Masnadi worked with Brandt to apply a new software tool developed at Stanford for calculating greenhouse gas emissions to oilfields around the world that have produced more than 1 billion barrels of oil over their lifetimes, sometimes called “super-giant” oilfields.
Conventional greenhouse gas estimates calculate emissions through a kind of economic reverse engineering, whereby an economic index is used to convert the monetary value of an oilfield’s final products – whether it be processed oil, natural gas or petroleum-based products – into greenhouse gas emissions. “This top-down approach for converting economic values into environmental and energetic costs misses a lot of underlying information,” Masnadi said.
What’s more, many studies look at data from only a single point in time, and as a result capture only a snapshot of an oilfield’s greenhouse gas emissions. But the Stanford scientists argue that in order to paint the most accurate picture of an oilfield’s true climate impacts – and also have the best chance of reducing those impacts – it’s necessary to assess the energy costs associated with every stage of the petroleum production process, and to do so for the oilfield’s entire lifetime.
Developed in Brandt’s lab at Stanford, a software tool called the Oil Production Greenhouse gas Emissions Estimator (OPGEE) is designed to do just that. For any given oilfield, OPGEE performs what’s known as a lifecycle assessment, analyzing each phase of the oil production process – extraction, refinement and transportation. It then uses computer models to calculate how much energy is consumed during each step. From this, scientists can calculate precisely how much greenhouse gas each oilfield emits.
“This bottom-up type of analysis hasn’t been done before because it’s difficult,” Masnadi said. “For this study, we needed over 50 different pieces of data for each oilfield for each year. When you’re trying to analyze an oilfield across decades, that’s a lot of data.”
Unfortunately, most oil companies are reluctant to release this type of temporal data about their oilfields. The Stanford researchers developed two workarounds to this problem. First, they gathered data from places where transparency laws require oil production data be made publically available. These included Canada, Norway and the U.K., and the state of California in the U.S. Secondly, the pair conducted a deep data mine of the scientific literature to seek out clues about oilfield production levels in published studies.
Diminishing returns
In the end, the pair ended up with data going back decades for 25 globally important super-giant oilfields. Applying OPGEE to this group, the scientists found that for many of the super-giant oilfields, oil production declined with time as the wells were depleted, but the energy expended to capture the remaining oil went up.
“The more oil that is extracted, the more difficult it becomes to extract the oil that remains, so companies have to resort to increasingly energy-intensive recovery methods, such as water, steam or gas flooding,” Masnadi said.
Making matters worse, oil recovered through such methods has to undergo more intense surface processing to filter out the excess water and gas. In the latter case, this can result in an excess of carbon dioxide and methane gas that is typically eliminated through burning – a process called “flaring” – or venting into the atmosphere.
“We can show with these results that a typical large oilfield will have a doubling of emissions per barrel of oil over a 25-year operating period,” Brandt said.
Win-win
How to stop this harmful cycle? One way is through tougher government regulations that force companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or risk having to lower production. This has been shown to work at two Canadian offshore fields, Hibernia and Terra Nova, where regulations have sharply lowered greenhouse gas emissions by limiting oil production in fields where gas is wasted through flaring and venting.
“Better regulation is certainly part of the answer, but a more progressive solution is to encourage energy companies to draw the energy they need to operate their aging oilfields from renewable sources such as solar, wind or geothermal,” Masnadi said.
He cites the example of the California-based company GlassPoint Solar, which uses solar-powered steam generators to reduce the gas consumption and carbon emissions of its oilfields by up to 80 percent.
Done right, such solutions could end up being a win-win for industry and the environment, the Stanford scientists said, by helping oil companies drive down energy costs while simultaneously reducing their climate impacts.
The OPGEE tool Brandt’s team developed has already been adopted by the California Air Resources Board to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels, but Brandt thinks it could also prove useful to industry.
“This can serve as a stepping stone toward lifecycle management of field emissions,” Brandt said. “Companies could plan operations to maximize production while minimizing emissions.”
###
Funding for the study, titled “Climate impacts of oil extraction increase significantly with oilfield age,” was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Ford Motor Co.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When someone is obsessed with a hammer their intelligence drops until they see only nails.
“…a new software tool…for calculating greenhouse gas emissions…”
I stopped reading right there. We have already seen that any model can be tuned to achieve the desired predetermined result.
You should have kept on reading—-Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator (OPGEE). It has already been adopted by the California Air Resources Board to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels. Wonder what they put on their trucks?
Which determined—-“The more oil that is extracted, the more difficult it becomes to extract the oil that remains, so companies have to resort to increasingly energy-intensive recovery methods, such as water, steam or gas flooding.”
Perhaps this is relevant as the information comes from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
“Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.” And they wonder why they have a “perception” problem? Probably the same guys who think you can put wind and other types of generated energy in one end and separate them at the other end.
you can use solar power to help out in recovery from older oil fields…
https://qz.com/618391/the-oil-industry-has-invented-an-ironic-new-use-for-solar-power/
and I’m sure that someone is using solar PV out in the gulf for electrical needs.
(If they are going to use the energy to get the oil anyway, in my book at least make it renewable)
Solar power has a lot of uses in oil fields. Meters and other low-power instruments are often solar powered.
Many, if not most, platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are natural gas-powered. Drilling rigs are usually diesel-powered.
Drilling rigs and production platforms operate 24/7/365. Solar panels would just occupy valuable deck space, already crowded with essential machinery and modules.
Griff,
The Oman project doesn’t reduce GHG emissions…
Instead of burning the gas steam injection in Oman, they are exporting it or burning it in Oman for other purposes.
This is one of the few actually logical uses of solar power I have ever seen, Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be workable anywhere where there isn’t a whole lot of land available…
I haven’t found a source stating the area that the solar panels cover; but a 7 MW natural gas-fired power plant would take up a fraction of the space.
In places like the desert, this is a good idea. Glasspoint is also working on a 1 GW thermal solar plant in Oman… Enabling the sultanate to produce and sell more oil and natural gas… An actual win-win-win.
https://www.glasspoint.com/markets/oman/
In that part of the world PEAK midday summer insolation is probably around 2-3Kw/sq meter of panel.
At night, not so much.
A whole lot of land, AND a whole lot of sun.
I think you owe me at least a credit for your follow up article!
And if it saves 80% of the gas used in EOR, its saves the CO2 from 80% of that gas.
They are going to extract the oil anyway, is my view.
I don’t know that space taken up by solar is generally an issue: there are lots of places to put it apart from deset – lakes, reservoirs, roofs, the sea near shore, over railways and irrigation canals, concrete on airfields, old coal mine spoil heaps, polluted ex-soviet military training areas and former open cast uranium mines are all sites I know of. Also if on arable land can be grazed or used to keep chickens on (that’s the case in the UK anyway)
and if you have a desert low tech solar CSP like Morocco and solar PV are excellent uses for your patch of sand
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/10/oman-signs-agreement-1-gigawatt-solar-project/
I do owe you credit… And I meant to do so. I will edit the post immediately.
The gas will be burned or consumed somewhere else and more oil will be produced and consumed… It’s a win-win-win.
You are now properly credited in the opening paragraph.
Hi David, you wrote:
“This is one of the few actually logical uses of solar power I have ever seen, Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be workable anywhere where there isn’t a whole lot of land available…”
Questions:
Is it really economic? That is a huge and costly solar facility to offset a small gas=powered steam plant.
Does the energy input to create this plant equal or exceed its lifetime output?
Will it work in places where is less sun and more clouds.
How about locations where hailstorms are common, like Alberta?
I think a saline solar pond might work better and cheaper in more locations.
Best, Allan
It’s people like you that result in beautiful areas being destroyed by greedy wind and solar companies. It’s people like you who destroy retirement plans when the Chinese and Venezuelans are given 98,000 acres of public land to destroy with wind plants. It’s people like you that destroy hunting and fishing opportunities. It’s people like you who care NOTHING about anyone but yourself. You hate humanity and want it punished. You are succeeding. Be happy—you now are on my “vile, greedy, selfish beings” list for damning people to live under your regime. I loathe you more each hour.
I’m sure they are quaking in their boots.
Griff and his fellow trolls don’t care how many people are killed. They have a planet to save.
Another empty retort from MarkW. What is it now, Mark, 10,000 posts without a single supporting link?
Nobody is killed and nothing is destroyed…
and I would note the majority of wind and solar projects in Germany are owned by ordinary citizens and not power companies.
(and to be honest Mark, he does have a point -you could counter my arguments with evidence and links instead of assertions)
Billionaires own the US wind plants—Buffet, Duke Energy, Nextra, and now China and Venezuela. I’m happy you approve of making the rich richer, Griff. I would have erroneously pegged you as socialist who wanted “fairness” above all. I had no idea you adored oil companies and people who got rich off oil. Congrats—you at least are with the skeptics on their love for the fossil fuel industry.
To quake in one’s boots, one must have moral compass. There’s not a lot of evidence of that.
Griff loves Griff. That’s all. It’s actually quite common among the enviros. They love themselves. No one else. You can’t fix selfishness and greed. You just can’t. Karma might, but people can’t.
Sheri, first I am not Griff. Second, about my quaking in their boots comment. Your comments about how destructive environmentally solar and wind is compared to fossil fuels is ludicrous. Below, I posted a link that shows that coal, for example, uses more land than solar. It is here: http://grist.org/article/2010-11-17-which-has-bigger-footprint-coal-plant-or-solar-farm/
The footprint of wind turbines is quite small. Yes, I am sure you call it a visual blight. Then why don’t you call out the 10s of thousands of oil rigs that dot US states for visual blight?
As far as your comments on billionaires – give me a break. The Koch brothers, who made their money in oil and gas, are worth $50B each. T Boone Pickens is a billionaire, as are many others. Same in coal, though on a smaller scale. Here’s a list of the owners of the largest wind farms in the US. It’s a bunch of companies. So how is that any different from the oil and gas sector?
Yeah they tried to force companies in the oil sands. One after another the companies picked up and left, taking billions of investment with them. To places like Iran who has a better investment climate, than the communists who run Alberta.
The study is incredibly naive, it also shows the authors don’t know much about what they discuss. Which in turn tells me that particular university needs better professors.
So nice of these “scientists” to offer to “help” oil companies. Just think how much “help” they could be to farmers, and indeed all industry, government, etc. What would we do without them?
We would be starving, living in shanties, unable to afford heat if they “helped” farmers and all industry.
Wrong. Ask farmers how much they work with and value extension agents from land grant universities. Or new varieties of crops, such drought resistant strains of wheat, corn, etc, and strains more resistant to pests.
When do we get the cradle to grave counts on wind and solar. From the first shovel of dirt mining for copper, rare earths, etc to the installation and maintenance, to decomissioning in the cases where the turbines aren’t left to rust, leak fluid and fall in place (all that needs to be counted too). After I see an honest accounting of this, maybe I’ll care about a political accounting of oil costs.
When hell freezes over.
Well Sheri, google is your friend there.
Not difficult to see how wind and solar must have decommissioning plans in place before they get approved or see news account of the first offshore wind farm being dismantled after end of its designed life (In the UK/EU at least we require whole life/decommission planning: I can’t say I know if US states, for example, do that basic thing).
you can also see how they save more CO2 in their lifespan than in whole build to decomm…
Oil companies had decommissioning plans in place—that’s why there are 1200 uncapped wells in Wyoming that the state will pay to cap. I can’t see wind being any different. You can’t get blood from a turnip, though as an enviro, you might believe that. Trust me, you can’t.
Google is not my friend. My enemy, yes. I don’t need to google the myth of decommissioning. I have heard the lies over and over and over from the wind plants billionaires.
Turbines save NO CO2. People who believe in perpetual motion machines never really get that. If only they understood science, they would see how stupid energy from weather really is. As often stated, unicorn flatulence would work equally well.
“If only they understood science, they would see how stupid energy from weather really is. As often stated, unicorn flatulence would work equally well.”
So I guess you are saying that hydroelectric power is really stupid.
” If only they understood science, they would see how stupid energy from weather really is”
..
Correct me if I am wrong Sheri, but isn’t it “weather” that causes rain to fall behind a hydroelectric dam?
..
http://business-ethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EarthTalkDams.jpg
David,
I don’t think it’s an accurate belief that rivers are created from rainfall run-off. In fact, I think it’s fairly easily falsified. Maybe a percentage of the flow is from rainfall, i.e. weather, but certainly not the bulk. So, I really don’t think we can say that hydro-electric is from weather.
rip
ripshin, if the source of the water that flows through a hydroelectric dam is not weather, then what is it?
David…interesting. You learn something new everyday. (And by “you”, I mean me.)
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrivers.html
I always thought that major rivers were sourced from subterranean aquifers rising to the surface. Apparently not. Who knew. (Well, I guess you did… 🙂 )
Cheers,
rip
Rain replenishes groundwater, which keeps rivers flowing from springs long after rain runoff has ceased.
Oh, and it’s quite interesting that Sheri criticized wind and solar, but said nothing about coal. Gee, perhaps that is because the coal industry has an abysmal environmental record – and it’s land footprint is larger than that for solar. It’s not just things like mountaintop removal, which thanks to Trump is now perfectly legal. It’s also strip mining and open pit mining. And no, most of the time the coal companies do not restore the land to a pre mining state: “In the West, during the decade 1996 to 2005, only one acre out of every 17 acres disturbed by mining emerged successfully from the regulatory bonding process, which ends with successful recontouring, establishment of vegetation, and restoration of aquifers. In some states, the record was even worse. In Wyoming, only one acre out of every 555 mined was reclaimed; in Montana, only one acre out of every 735. In Central Appalachia, the results are similarly dismal: According to the Appalachian Voices study, after decades of mountaintop-removal mining, 89.3 percent of MTR mining sites still show no post-mining economic development.”
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-17-which-has-bigger-footprint-coal-plant-or-solar-farm/
I would just add that we’ve already been through this once before with “too cheap to meter” promises for nuclear power. What we learned is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still valid. Things fall apart. Maintenance and upkeep are significant drivers to the cost of power production. The successful technologies find ways to minimize O&M as a percentage of generating costs. That’s how nuclear stayed in the game. As the replacement, repair, and maintenance costs approach the initial costs of installation, however…well, that’s when you have a problem.
rip
So amount of energy to extract oil goes up with time?
No! whoda thunk it? I thought that it just kept coming and coming like mick jagger on cocaine until you had to use energy to stop it!
File Under: Expensive waste of time, Bleedin obvious, Junk
Gee, I wonder what the energy costs are for aging cities and those cities around Stanford that force the population out to extreme commutes with absurd building permit costs, regulations, and price escalation.
I just drove through windmill country in western Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, and eastern New Mexico. I wonder what that landscape will look like in another 10 years.
The climate extremists are destroying our environment by way of their obsession on CO2.
On July 1, of this year, the Oklahoma governor signed a law doing away with windmill subsidies. It seems what started out in 2001 as subsidies of a few millions dollars annually has risen over the years to over $100 million annually and could go into the billions if this law wasn’t signed.
So I guess we’ll see how windmill farms will fare in Oklahoma with no subsidies from the State of Oklahoma.
Current windfarms will continue to receive the subsidies for the next ten years, but no new windmill farms will get subsidies.
Windmill Farms are putting a serious dent in Oklahoma’s state budget.
In fact, Oklahoma legislators are suggesting that windmill farms be taxed.
The climate extremists are reducing humanity to a CO2 equation whose solution is the elimination of humanity.
Watch out. They are going the way of German eugenicists.
Am I to assume that companies that have been managing oil fields for over 100 years, haven’t noticed prior to the existence of this “study”, that as oil fields age, it takes more effort to get the remaining oil?
So one solution is to try and drill for more oilfields…
Common sense is not a bureaucracy strong point.
The Stanford study and all similar studies begin with the premise that climate change is human-induced and due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The premise itself is the issue in question. Until that issue is resolved, studies of greenhouse gas emissions are pointless and a waste of resources. Why was the study even funded. Might as well measure cow emissions as a function of age..
Some physicists (most recently President Rosenbaum of Caltech) now posit that nature cannot be modeled with Newtonian physics but possibly might be modeled with quantum physics. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in December 2016 predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role. CERN concludes that climate models used by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high and that the models should be redone. The CERN models are driven by quantum physics.
Focusing research on GHG emissions is the wrong research, and policies stemming from that research are the wrong policies. Get the science right first, and the right policies might follow. Make America right again!
That issue is not in question…
clearly CO2 levels are rising and isotopes show that CO2 is from human activity.
clearly temperature series show a rise in temps globally and long established physics show CO2 drives temp rises.
there may be some scope for argument in the impact of future predictions and for an outright row over whether the models work, but current climate change is human-induced and due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying about her professional qualifications yet Skanky, you misogynist little p1mp for the likes of ‘Sir’ Reg Sheffield?
Are the metrics of applying greater energy inputs at the end of life cycle of a super giant oilfield also applied to PV & wind? As PV ages, the cell conversion efficiency drops. As a wind farm ages, it requires more maintenance. As a result of this, the PV installation needs more fossil fuels to back up the grid capacity as it ages. Similar, yet more indirect issues will affect wind farms.
This article advances the cause by counting the energy used to get energy from the ground twice.
All that work to prove that oilfields follow an economic supply curve – just like everything else…
Next up, a study proving that water is wet. Why can’t I ever find a job like that?