 | 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
Excellent overview of THAI. Thanks for the new (at least to me) information. Regarding the issue of "include in-situ fuel or not", I lean toward the position that "it should be included IF the deposit being recovered is shallow enough to be mined (eg. mining and water processing would allow recovery of that resource as well), else if the deposit is too deep to mine, then not included (it would never be recovered anyway)." Also of note. Including the "lost fuel" THAI uses in recovery in the EROEI is nearly comparable to including the 45% unrecovered oil left in a standard light-oil field into that system's EROEI.
So, EROEI = 8.9 if deposit < 100 meters deep, else 50+ something.
A further question. In the documents you read, any reference to groundwater issues? I know groundwater is an issue with in-situ coal gassification.
Lengould,
Good insight. I agree that if there was a clear "use" for the oil burned in situ it would definitely be considered a cost. The files that I had did not list well depth or any groundwater contamination issues- but I will keep looking. This project is still in an early stage so the environmental impacts have not been assessed - if they ever are.
Note this information is from Petrobank's own documents released over the past few years. HTH.
The Whitesands Project Geological Cross-Section I am looking at shows the oil sands at a depth of 1200 feet and having a depth of 100 feet.
The water/steam is used to pre-heat the well (three months?) as opposed to a SAGD well where it is used all the time. The wells have a projected life of up to 10 years, after which a second series of wells will be drilled to continue the recovery process.
"The central processing facility (CPF) is also planned to incorporate leading edge technology to produce a high-quality water by-product for industrial use, utilize oxygen enriched injection air, recover hydrocarbons from the produced gas stream and manage greenhouse gases."
I'll add a comment on the comparison to mines.....the reservoir is too deep to ever be economic for mining. Also, the permit application filed in December 2008 with the Alberta ERCB and Alberta Environmental includes a complete (and very detailed I might add) EIR (Environmental Impact Report). I believe the ERCB deemed the application complete last month which means the formal government review process has begun.
Regarding ground water, the stratigraphic well data shows an extensive shale rock cap over the reservoir. I'm not a geologist and can not comment on the integrity of that cap to protect the ground water however I'm confident the ERCB geologists are and do. Geologically, May River looks like a typical SAG-D reservoir of which many have been permitted and are in operation.