<DrumBeat: February 12, 2009 The Oil Drum Mission Earth>

39 comments on Kern River Production Estimates versus What is Economic

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

HvyOilGuy on February 13, 2009 - 1:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't think either of you two are catching my drift (see below).

Chevron has burned trillions, if not quadrillions of Btu of (our) natural gas to produce oil they have sold for a (handsome) profit. Over time, they've paid only a fraction of a dollar (per million Btu) for this. All the CO2 in that natural gas (or crude, when they burned that) is now contributing to the climate problem.

A sizable fraction of those Btu's still remain underground in the Kern River Field, suitable for recovery by existing pumping methods through the porous formations. The recovery of the electricity (including development costs) could be done within the investment budget that Chevron already has.

At some point they will want to "shut down" the oil production and abandon everything because it isn't "profitable" to produce the oil any more, and they expect us to approve of this???

Excuse me, but I don't think so!! If the Energy Commissioners of California are worth their salt, they should not allow it to happen. They have renewable energy goals that must be met. The Kern River "thermal" field (along with other San Joaquin fields) could make a significant contribution toward meeting those goals at minimal additional investment. It certainly would be far less costly than the electricity from CSP plants SoCal Edison has committed itself to buy.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then, You Win" M. Gandhi

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ROCKMAN on February 13, 2009 - 2:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sorry Guy. I caught your drift but was distracted. I'm sure in some fields thermal recovery efforts could be attempted. But I doubt KR would qualify. Most of what I know I've gained from Gail's posts but I suspect it would be difficult to effectively move the water thru those heated sections. Secondly, unless Chevron leases allow thermal recovery those buried BTU's belong to the mineral owner. And lastly, it's not likely any regulatory body could compel Chevron to take on the task. But if the state of CA would want to take on the task and spend their money I sure Chevron would be glad to donate those leases to the state.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HvyOilGuy on February 13, 2009 - 4:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Didn't Gail say that 80,000 bpd of crude was produced with 90% water cut? That would produce about 720,000 Bbl/d (30,000 Bbl/hr)of water at a 230 F in-hole temperature. Let's say the water arrives at 194 F (90 C) on the surface gathering tank after heat losses in the gathering process.

At 350 lb per barrel they're handling 10.5 x10^6 lb/hr. If this is cooled from 90 C to 50 C (122 F) for treatment, this is equivalent to 10.5 x 10^6 x 72 F = 756 x 10^6 Btu/hr. At a "heat rate" of 15,000 Btu/hr/kw (not counting the harvesting of CAPE in the atmosphere) , were looking at a potential of generating 50 x 10^3 kw = 50 MW TODAY, from material that is already being gathered and which constitutes a minor fraction of the overall field.

During the summer, this output could be nearly doubled during "high demand" peaks, from the heat contained in the troposphere.

To me, it doesn't matter what Chevron can be legally compelled to do. They are broadcasting commercials on television trying to convince everyone how "green" they are with they're "willyoujoinus" campaign, even saying it was important to use "less" energy.

The question then becomes: "Will they put their money where their mouth is?" If so, even I might consider joining up.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

39 comments on Kern River Production Estimates versus What is Economic

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version