Geothermal power is probably the lowest-profile renewable energy option we have. It doesn't get nearly the attention that wind and solar power do--even from me--although it has been quietly cranking out about 0.4% of the US electricity supply for many years. That roughly matches the expected output of all the wind turbines likely to be installed here this year. I've commented previously on the striking similarities between geothermal exploration and production and the processes and risk profile of oil and gas E&P, but I don't believe I've ever mentioned a small but potentially important overlap between the two: geothermal heat extracted from the fluids produced from oil and gas wells. The potential contribution of "geothermal hydrocarbon co-production" (GHCP) might not be as large as from conventional hydrothermal reservoirs or engineered geothermal systems (EGS), but this approach has the advantage of capitalizing on additional energy from a source that's already being exploited.
In its report on the US geothermal industry earlier this year, the Geothermal Energy Association listed five projects involving GHCP and related efforts to tap the mechanical energy of high-pressure gas reservoirs, or geopressured fluids. The Department of Energy has recognized this potential and provided partial funding for several of these projects under its stimulus programs. GEA also cited an estimate from Southern Methodist University's Geothermal Energy Program that GHCP from the onshore Gulf Coast region alone could provide up to 5,000 MW of reliable power. That doesn't include the potential for using the large volumes of produced water in new or abandoned wells to tap the energy of higher-temperature rock formations underlying the hydrocarbon reservoirs using engineered geothermal systems (EGS).
The benefits of these approaches for low-emission power generation seem obvious, but it's worth considering why they might be attractive for oil and gas companies that are mainly focused on producing hydrocarbons for processing and sale, not electricity. GHCP addresses two key, related problems of many mature US oil fields. The first is water, which in many cases is injected underground as part of "secondary recovery", in order to increase the total fraction of hydrocarbons recovered from an oil field during its life. Together with water already present in these reservoirs (as distinct from the shallower aquifers used for drinking water and irrigation) this contributes to high "water cuts"--large volumes of water produced with the oil and gas that sometimes exceed oil volumes by a factor of 20:1. If this water is in contact with hot rock, it will bring some of that heat to the surface, where it can be recovered using binary geothermal technology. SMU estimated total produced water from US oil production at 50 billion barrels per year.
That's an enormous volume of water for the industry to handle and dispose of in an appropriate manner, and it gives rise to another problem that GHCP can help tackle. It takes a lot of electricity to pump all that water out of the ground, process it, and pump it back down. That power must either be purchased or generated onsite. If GHCP can just provide enough power to cover an oil field's operating power requirements, it represents a significant savings in the cost per barrel of oil produced. The SMU study suggests that there is also an opportunity for net electricity production, representing another potential revenue source for an oil project. Depending on the investment required, that could improve overall project economics.
I see another, less obvious benefit for geothermal hydrocarbon co-production. The US geothermal industry hasn't attracted anything like the investment that's gone into wind and solar power; it is starved for capital. As a result, it can only tap a small fraction of the potential power from US hydrothermal reservoirs, let alone the orders-of-magnitude larger potential of EGS. If these projects don't offer quite the economic payoff of oil and gas production, they at least closely resemble what the oil industry does day in and day out, while being almost completely unlike what firms involved in wind, solar or even biomass power do. GHCP could be a natural bridge for more of the oil and gas industry, which its much larger capital, skills and technology base, to expand into geothermal energy that doesn't involve any hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy
Authored by:
Geoffrey Styles
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant and advisor, helping organizations and executives address systems-level challenges. His industry experience includes 22 years at Texaco Inc., culminating in a senior position on Texaco's leadership team for strategy development, ...
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Jim Baird says:
Geoffrey
Lord Oxburgh, one of the world’s leading geologists and former British chairman of Shell, has said of the Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method, “I have often myself wondered whether it would be feasible to harness the heat generated by sequestered nuclear materials. I suspect that the major problems might well be political rather than technological.”
The oilsands are one of the largest unconventional oil formations but they contain the most expensive and polluting form of oil to produce which makes them vulnerable.
Peter Tertzakian of ARC Financial highlighted this point in his September 27, 2010, post titled Oil Producers Beware of Friendly Fire:
“Influential Americans will gradually reduce US oil consumption over the course of this decade. However, the real question is, “whose imported oil barrels will be cut first?”
It’s far from assured that the first barrels to be shed from US imports are OPEC barrels. In fact, simple economic theory tells us that the highest cost barrels are the first to disappear when demand is slashed. ”
David Emerson, former Canadian Minister of International Trade and Chair of Alberta Premier Stelmach's Council for Economic Strategy recently stated, “It may take a dramatic gesture to convince a skeptical public to applaud Alberta as a responsible natural resource steward."
American’s greatest threat is the detonation of a nuclear device on its soil, the likelihood of which has been put as high as fifty% in this decade.
Securing the plutonium contained in the global inventory of spent fuel in wells producing Alberta’ resource would provide the security America needs and is the quid pro quo that would insure the U.S. market to Alberta’s resource.
U.S. patent application 12/249,928 also teaches a secure method of disposing of the global inventory of excess weapons plutonium and the tonnes of reactor grade plutonium that have been extracted from commercial waste.
At the recent Berkley conference on North American Futures: Canada-US Perspectives Daniel Kammen, Professor in the Energy and Resources Group at Berkley, suggested the only acceptable way to develop the oilsands is by using either non-carbon geothermal energy or nuclear power to mobilize the viscous bitumen.
The 2007, MIT Nuclear Energy and Sustainability Program report, Integration of Nuclear Energy with Oil Sands Projects For Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Natural Gas Consumption states, “For electricity production, nuclear becomes competitive with natural gas plants at natural gas prices of $10-13/MMBtu (CAD).”
Friday the price for a December contract was $4.21 per MMBtu so nuclear does nothing to lower current costs of oil sands production, let alone zeroes out the energy cost and the same goes for carbon capture so bitumen remains vulnerable to cost in either case.
Further the use of surface site reactors leaves you with a waste problem which NAHPM instead remedies.
Some already scream bloody murder at the prospect of this solution but I believe it is going to come down to the fact Alberta is going to have to give something to get something.
Thanks for the feedback.
Geoffrey Styles says:
Jim,
I understand there are a variety of ways to extract additional useful energy from spent nuclear fuel, and I've read several proposals over the years to use nuclear-generated process heat for lower-emission hydrocarbon extraction, especially from oil sands. Linking the two ideas seems like an intriguing possibility; however, it also raises questions that are beyond my expertise, in terms of how controllable such a heat source might be, and whether it's really not better to use a surface-sited reactor (even a small-scale one, like the Babcock & Wilcox modular version), rather than stuffing high-level waste down-hole where it can't be managed as easily. I am quite sure it would also trigger significant concerns of the NUMBY variety (not under my back yard--the next step beyond NIMBY.) Perhaps some of the many nuclear experts who frequent the TEC site could shed more light on these issues.
Jim Baird says:
In a recent Outlook India article, 'Transforming Nuclear Waste Heat Into Power Possible”, Prof D Chandrasekharam, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, states that high-level nuclear waste (HLW) in a geological repository should be considered an anthropogenic Enhanced Geothermal Systems with a small volume of waste capable of generating high amounts of electric power.
Capitalizing on the thermal potential of high level waste is the essence of the Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method (NAHPM), which uses the thermal flux of HLW to fracture an unconventional oil formation, alter the chemical and/or physical properties of the hydrocarbon material within the formation to allow removal of the altered materials.
Aside from the Not In My Back Yard factor, the major problems associated with spent nuclear fuel are; the decay heat it generates that can break down the crystalline structure of rock in which it is placed and induces hydrothermal convection that can transport hazardous material back to the biosphere, high-level radiation which is lethal and disassociates water into its ionic components that can detrimentally react with spent fuel bundles and their containers and the cost, danger and the proliferation potential of reprocessing.
The major problems associated with the in situ recovery of Alberta’s oilsands are cost, CO2 generation and water scarcity all of which are overcome by capitalizing on what are considered to be the problems of HLW.
Laricina Energy Ltd of Calgary, Alberta, points out in a presentation, Strategies for Cheaper Bitumen, the rate of oil recovery is a function of the (time averaged) reservoir temperature and that the optimal recovery temperature is in the range of 150oC. As they note the trade off between this lower temperature and the 200oC to 250oC typically used in the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process to produce bitumen is the speed of recovery not the amount of oil produced.
Even at 150oC the cost of steam in $/bbl is roughly $12 as opposed to $15-18 typically.
NAHPM would zero out this energy cost and produces bitumen without producing an ounce of CO2 in the absence of all but in situ water.
The surface temperature of SNF ranges between 250oC and 350oC and is sufficient to gradually raise the temperature of bitumen in situ into the 150oC range necessary for recovery.
Hydrogen released by the process of radiolysis and ionizing radiation could also aid in fracturing and upgrading long chain bitumen molecules into more valuable fractions under ground.
Placing spent fuel in a deep oilsands formation to foster production would provide a massive economic benefit to Alberta, which is the best way to address the NIMBY factor associated HLW.
The cost of a Canadian repository has been estimated at $24 billion, which as the Canadian Broadcasting Company reported in 2009 is likely to rise; therefore it makes economic sense for Canada or every other nuclear nation to put this material to work producing oilsands where the energy return on investment for SAGD is estimated at 5.2/1.
The cost of Yucca Mountain was approaching $100 billion. Far better everyone received a return on the energy going to waste.
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today




