 | Some Thoughts on the Obama Energy Agenda from the Perspective of Net Energy | The Oil Drum: Net Energy | Further Evidence of the Influence of Energy on the U.S. Economy |  |
78 comments on EROI Update: Preliminary Results using Toe-to-Heel Air Injection
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
78 comments on EROI Update: Preliminary Results using Toe-to-Heel Air Injection
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- theoildrumeroi at gmail dot com
Personnel
Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks David.
Here is a related post by Robert Rapier, An EROEI Review, which mentions brazilian ethanol from sugar cane having a similar, (but different) calculation problem to THAI. In that case the oft-cited EROI of 8:1+ is over-stated, because the bagasse is not counted as an energy input. Nor should it be, as it has very real energy opportunity costs (could be used for electricity, bio-gas, etc.) So that drops the EROI of sugar-cane ethanol to around 3:1. (in the first comment in that post there is a relevant graphic)
The case study above of THAI is different, because from the perspective of modern society that bitumen sitting underground has little realistic opportunity cost - heating in situ is (probably) it's best use. From that perspective the 56:1 number is 'realistic', though from a wide boundary systems approach, it only appears that high because the input is 'free' (of such low quality it is costless). In energy terms it is burning/accessing a fossil source 'quicker' at a cost of making its URR smaller - (one of problems of EROI is it treats renewable and fossil inputs as equal).
While 56:1 is very high, the 'energy gain' available to society would be limited to the # of joules/barrels of flow rate per unit time from this process. E.g. root vegetables have an EROI of about 30:1 but we can't get 86 mbpd of potatoes. Do you have any sense of the scalability of THAI? Can it be used throughout Athabasca? Also, you mentioned it uses less water than SAGD or mining - do you have any data on that?
Hi Nate,
My understanding is THAI™ can be applied where ever SAG-D can be applied. Alberta estimates the total resource at 1.7 trillion barrels. I'm guessing 1+trillion of the resource is a candidate for THAI™. It is also applicable to producing heavy oil with the same kind of recovery and upgrading performance. Saskatchewan has 21+ billion barrels of heavy oil. The first pilot in Saskatchewan will be a JV with True Energy/Kerrobert to come on stream this summer.
The scalability of THAI™ is confirmed in the May River Phase I application of 10,000 BPD of a 100,000 BPD project when fully developed. You can apply that to the entire SAG-D resource to get an idea of the significance of this development for North America.
The produced water is what I would call an industrial quality fresh water and is suitable for use by SAG-D operators. The information in the permit application states 2 barrels of water for every barrel of THAI™ produced bitumen.
In my opinion, the process will likely export electrical power to the grid as the available joules in the lean process gas are considerably in excess of the 25 Megawatts called for in the permit energy balance for plant utilities. In other words, the EROI will likely be greater than the highest of the three numbers calculated from the data in the permit. For this posting, we went with the data published. As this is the first scaled up commercial demonstration facility, I believe all the utility requirements are conservatively presented (larger than required).
Late to the party here this morning...thanks to google alerts for cueing me that the post is up :<)
Re: 100,000 BPD project
I`m having trouble estimating how much producing THAI wells that would represent. What is the nominal flow rate (net of water volumes) expected from a single producing well? is it 2,000 BPD/well?
"What is the nominal flow rate (net of water volumes) expected from a single producing well?"
555 BPD/well x 18 wells = 10,000 BPD partially upgraded bitumen.
I'm wondering if the process is capable of using the process gas from operating wells to start new wells. If this is the case, the limits on THAI are effectively removed. Surface mining and SAGD require natural gas to produce hot water and steam, but THAI supplies its own process heat.
I suppose the next step is to do on-site coking to upgrade the full product stream to something that requires no diluent.
"I suppose the next step is to do on-site coking to upgrade the full product stream to something that requires no diluent."
The next step is catalytic cracking in the reservoir to further upgrade the product to reduce/eliminate the need for diluent and this article gives a good overview.
WHAT LIES BENEATH
Poised to launch the CAPRI component of its in situ toe-to-heel air injection production technology, Petrobank aims to upgrade bitumen before it ever comes to the surface
http://www.oilweek.com/articles.asp?ID=601
Where does the 30:1 figure apply, is it large mechanized potato farms in Idaho, or is it postgrad student out intermittantly digging with shovel while working on dissertation?
That's because it's not an energy input for anyone outside the ethanol plant's walls.
How is this not EROEI 8:1 for society?
***
The problem here is that you're erroneously conflating two things:
#1 has an EROEI of about 13:1, while #2 has an efficiency of about 65%, and combining these two gives us the 8:1 EROEI of cane ethanol.
Think of it this way: suppose farming cane was EROEI of 100:1, but the conversion was only 8% efficient. This still returns 8 units of energy to society for every 1 unit it invests in the process, but your calculation would say it took 1 unit of farming energy + 92 units of bagasse energy to generate 8 units of ethanol energy, for a massive energy loss of 8:93. This scenario shows the error in your calculation more clearly: the calculation predicts a huge net energy loss (93 units -> 8 units = -85 units), when in fact there is a net energy gain (1 unit -> 8 units = +7 units).
Pitt - I disagree. That lignin could be used for something else. The above graphics show the same process (cellulosic or sugar cane ethanol) measured in two ways. The bottom diagram shows traditional EROEI = energy out / energy in. The top graphic indicates that the intermediate step biomass K2 (the bagasse) has an energy opportunity cost as it could be used for other energy uses. This 'loss' of availability has to be considered, which translates to EROEI = (Eout +(E lost-Ein)) / E lost.
Here are numbers from our pending publication:
In a different economy the bagasse might be used in many other energy technologies; heat, biogas, electricity, etc. that would have higher social efficiencies. So the bagasse has to be considered an energy opportunity cost, and if not counted as an input it will overstate the EROEI. This is relevant if we would change how society used energy. There would be less need for high energy surplus liquid fuels if things were done more locally, or with more electricity, etc. Again, this gets at energy quality and is not something I would debate too an extreme, but I think it is correct.