DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels November 26, 2008 DOE/NETL-2009/1346 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels DOE/NETL-2009/1346 November 26, 2008 NETL Contacts: Timothy J. Skone, P.E. Kristin Gerdes Office of Systems, Analyses and Planning National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov This page intentionally left blank. Acknowledgements This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (U.S. DOE-NETL). The NETL sponsor for this project was Dan Cicero, Office of Coal and Power R&D, Technology Manager for Hydrogen and Syngas Program. The NETL management team provided guidance and technical oversight for this study. Contract support was provided by Massood Ramezan and Barbara Bennett, Research and Development Solutions, LLC (RDS) under contract number DE-AC26-04NT 41817.403.01.12A. NETL would like to acknowledge and thank the contributions of Bill Harrison, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory; Dr. James Hileman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Dr. Joyce Cooper, University of Washington for their review comments that helped improve the quality of this report. NETL would also like to thank Aaron Levy and Ari Kahan from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality for developing the national average vehicle emissions profile for the year 2005. This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xi Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... xiv Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. ES - 1 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose & Goal of the Study .......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Study Boundary and Modeling Approach ...................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Scope of the Environmental Life Cycle Analysis................................................... 2 1.3.2 Cut-off Criteria for the System Boundary .............................................................. 4 1.3.3 Exclusion of Data from the System Boundary ....................................................... 4 1.3.4 Data Reduction and Allocation Procedures ............................................................ 5 1.3.5 Geography, Technology and Time-frame Represented.......................................... 5 1.4 Life Cycle Stages ............................................................................................................ 5 2.0 LC Stage #1: Raw Material Acquisition ........................................................................ 8 2.1 Raw Material Acquisition for Domestic Petroleum Refineries ...................................... 8 2.1.1 Crude Oil Acquisition............................................................................................. 9 2.1.1.1 Crude Oil Extraction GHG Profiles.................................................................... 9 2.1.1.2 Canadian Crude Oil Mix Extraction GHG Profile............................................ 11 2.1.1.3 Crude Oil Mix Composite Extraction GHG Profiles........................................ 12 2.1.2 Natural Gas Liquids Extraction and Processing ................................................... 13 2.1.3 Unfinished Oils Extraction and Processing .......................................................... 14 2.1.4 LC Stage #1 Summary for Domestic Refineries................................................... 15 2.2 Raw Material Acquisition for Foreign Petroleum Refineries....................................... 15 2.2.2 Raw Material Extraction for Gasoline Imports..................................................... 22 2.2.3 Raw Material Extraction for Diesel Imports......................................................... 22 2.2.4 Raw Material Extraction for Jet Fuel Imports ...................................................... 22 2.3 Summary of Life Cycle Stage #1 GHG Emissions Profiles ......................................... 23 3.0 Life Cycle Stage #2: Raw Material Transport ............................................................ 24 3.1 Crude Oil Mix Transport .............................................................................................. 25 3.1.1 Crude Oil Mix Transport to Domestic Refineries................................................. 25 i 3.1.1.1 Crude Oil Transport within Exporting Country................................................ 25 3.1.1.2 Crude Oil Mix Ocean Transport to Domestic Ports.......................................... 25 3.1.1.3 Crude Oil Mix Domestic Transport .................................................................. 27 3.1.2 Crude Oil Mix Transport to Foreign Refineries ................................................... 30 3.2 Natural Gas Liquids Transport...................................................................................... 31 3.3 Unfinished Oils Transport............................................................................................. 31 3.4 Summary of Life Cycle Stage #2 GHG Emissions Profiles ......................................... 32 4.0 Life Cycle Stage #3: Liquid Fuels Production.............................................................. 33 4.1 General Description of a Petroleum Refinery............................................................... 34 4.2 Liquid Fuels Production at Domestic Petroleum Refineries......................................... 37 4.2.1 Reported Refinery Data ........................................................................................ 39 4.2.2 Refinery Energy Usage......................................................................................... 39 4.2.3 Fuels Acquisition.................................................................................................. 41 4.2.3.1 Purchased Electricity and Steam....................................................................... 41 4.2.3.2 Coal................................................................................................................... 42 4.2.3.3 Natural Gas....................................................................................................... 47 4.2.3.4 Refinery-Produced Fuels.................................................................................. 47 4.2.3.5 Refinery Fuels Acquisition Emissions Profile.................................................. 48 4.2.4 Refiner Fuels Combustion .................................................................................... 48 4.2.4.1 CO2 Emissions from Refinery Fuels Combustion ............................................ 48 4.2.4.2 Methane Emissions from Refinery Fuels Combustion ..................................... 48 4.2.4.3 N2O Emissions from Refinery Fuels Combustion............................................ 49 4.2.4.4 Refinery Fuels Combustion Emissions Profile................................................. 50 4.2.5 Hydrogen Production............................................................................................ 51 4.2.5.1 Hydrogen Production Via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)......................... 52 4.2.5.2 Hydrogen Produced from Catalytic Reformer.................................................. 55 4.2.5.3 Summary of Hydrogen Pool ............................................................................. 56 4.2.6 Flaring Operations................................................................................................ 58 4.2.6.1 CO2 Emissions .................................................................................................. 58 4.2.6.2 Methane Emissions ........................................................................................... 58 4.2.6.3 N2O Emissions.................................................................................................. 60 4.2.7 Vented/Fugitive Emissions ..................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator OPGEE V2.0C

    Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator OPGEE V2.0C

    Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator OPGEE v2.0c User guide & Technical documentation Hassan M. El-Houjeiri,1,? Mohammad S. Masnadi,1 Kourosh Vafi,1,? James Duffy,2 Adam R. Brandt1,† With technical contributions from: Jingfan Wang1, Sylvia Sleep,3 Diana Pacheco,4 Zainab Dashnadi,3 Andrea Orellana,4,? Jacob Englander,1 Scott McNally,1,? Heather MacLean,4 Joule Bergerson3 1 Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University 2 California Air Resources Board, Alternative Fuels Section 3 Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary 4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto ? Prior affiliation, now employed elsewhere †Corresponding author: [email protected], +1-650-724-8251 June 20th, 2018 Funded by: California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board Contents 1 Acknowledgements 10 I Introduction and user guide 11 2 Introduction 12 2.1 Model motivation . 12 2.2 OPGEE model goals . 13 2.3 OPGEE model construction . 13 3 User guide 18 3.1 Input worksheet . 18 3.2 Process stage worksheets . 18 3.3 Supplementary worksheets . 20 3.4 Output gathering worksheets . 21 3.5 Structure of each worksheet . 21 3.6 Working with OPGEE . 22 3.7 Inputs . 32 II Technical documentation 34 4 Process stage worksheets 35 4.1 Exploration emissions . 35 4.2 Drilling & development . 38 4.3 Production & extraction . 50 4.4 Surface Processing . 88 4.5 Maintenance operations . 110 4.6 Waste treatment and disposal . 111 4.7 Crude oil transport . 112 5 Supplemental calculations worksheets 116 5.1 Gas balance . 116 5.2 Steam generation for thermal oil recovery .
  • The Exploding Threat of Crude by Rail in California (PDF)

    The Exploding Threat of Crude by Rail in California (PDF)

    NRDC: It Could Happen Here - The Exploding Threat of Crude by Rail in California (PDF) JUNE 2014 NRDC fact SHEET FS:14-06-B It Could Happen Here: The Exploding Threat of Crude by Rail in California Soda cans on wheels. That’s what some call the dangerous rail tank cars that have suddenly become ubiquitous across the American landscape. In the rush to transport land-locked unconventional new crude oil sources, old rail lines running through communities across America are now rattling with thousands of cars filled with crude oil. Neither the cars nor the railroads were built for this purpose. Worse, federal regulators have few safeguards in place to protect communities and the environment from accidents, spills and explosions resulting from the race to move millions of barrels of crude by rail. More crude oil was transported by rail in North America in 2013 than in the past five years combined, most of it extracted from the Bakken shale of North Dakota and Montana.1 In California, the increase in crude by rail has been particularly dramatic, from 45,000 barrels in 2009 to 6 million barrels in 2013.2 As “rolling pipelines” of more than 100 rail cars haul millions of gallons of crude oil through our communities,3 derailments, oil spills and explosions are becoming all too common. Between March 2013 and May 2014, there were 12 significant oil train derailments in the United States and Canada. As oil companies profit, communities bear the cost. TIMELINE SIDEBAR: Crude By Rail Accidents, March 2013-May 2014 2008: 2013: 9,500 434,000 average crude (40 fold increase!) oil rail cars annually For more Diane Bailey www.nrdc.org/energy information, [email protected] www.facebook.com/nrdc.org please switchboard.nrdc.org/ www.twitter.com/nrdc contact: blogs/dbailey CRUDE BY RAIL ACCIDENTS, MARCH 2013-MAY 2014 JUNE 27, 2013 NOVEMBER 8, 2013 JANUARY 20, 2014 CALGARY, ALBERTA, TRAIN PICKENS COUNTY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, DERAILED ON A BRIDGE OVER ALABAMA, 90-CAR 6 TRAIN CARS CARRYING BOW RIVER.
  • Transportation of Oil and Gas By: Aiden Leibel, Callaghan Seagram, Carly Mcmann, Maia Mclellan, Hayden Oliveira, Trusha Savaliya, and Kimmy Bhandal

    Transportation of Oil and Gas By: Aiden Leibel, Callaghan Seagram, Carly Mcmann, Maia Mclellan, Hayden Oliveira, Trusha Savaliya, and Kimmy Bhandal

    Transportation of Oil and Gas By: Aiden Leibel, Callaghan Seagram, Carly McMann, Maia McLellan, Hayden Oliveira, Trusha Savaliya, and Kimmy Bhandal As the human population expands, it becomes increasingly important to be aware of the consequences that come with meeting our rising standards of living. In today’s busy world, it can be easy to overlook the impact that having our needs met right away can have on the environment and the diverse species that live within it. One particularly significant area of concern is the movement of oil and gas. This topic deserves increased attention, especially as the planet’s resources become more limited and areas grow more densely populated. As the earth’s abundance of oil gets increasingly scarce, it is crucial to explore the safety and efficiency of the various ways it is transported great distances. It has never been more imperative to critically weigh the costs and benefits of each method as they relate to the economy, environment, and regard for human safety and respect. This paper intends to thoroughly investigate the varying modes of oil transportation such as rail, trucking, pipelines, and tankers before recommending appropriate avenues to pursue in the future. Rail It is noted that about 97% of Canada’s oil gets exported to the United States (U.S.) and 3% goes to Europe and Asia (NRC, 2019). There are various modes of transporting this oil, but rail remains a popular option as exceeding amounts of oil is needed. Furthermore, there are advantages and disadvantages of using this method in terms of efficiency and cost, spill risks, and greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Petroleum Products Road Transportation (Business) Regulations 2017

    Petroleum Products Road Transportation (Business) Regulations 2017

    Petroleum Products Road Transportation (Business) Regulations 2017 1 of 31 Table of Contents PART 1 PRELIMINARY ........................................................................................................... 5 1 NAME OF REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 5 2 APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 COMMENCEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 5 4. GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 PART 2 ROAD TANK VEHICLE ............................................................................................ 11 5 VEHICLE .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 5.1 DOCUMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 11 5.1.1 REGISTRATION .......................................................................................................................................
  • A New Era of Crude Oil Transport: Risks and Impacts in the Great Lakes Basin by Susan Christopherson and Kushan Dave

    A New Era of Crude Oil Transport: Risks and Impacts in the Great Lakes Basin by Susan Christopherson and Kushan Dave

    CARDI REPORTS/ISSUE NUMBER 15/NOVEMBER 2014 i Department of Development Sociology Cornell University CaRDIISSUE NUMBER 15/NOVEMBER 2014 Reports A New Era of Crude Oil Transport: Risks and Impacts in the Great Lakes Basin by Susan Christopherson and Kushan Dave CaRDI is a Multidisciplinary Social Sciences Institute of Cornell University www.cardi.cornell.edu ii CARDI REPORTS/ISSUE NUMBER 15/NOVEMBER 2014 CaRDIISSUE NUMBER 15/NOVEMBER 2014 Reports A New Era of Crude Oil Transport: Risks and Impacts in the Great Lakes Basin by Susan Christopherson and Kushan Davea CaRDI is a Multidisciplinary Social Sciences Institute of Cornell University www.cardi.cornell.edu CaRDI Reports is a publication of Cornell University’s Community & Regional Development Institute (CaRDI), edited by Robin M. Blakely-Armitage. CaRDI publications are free for public reproduction with proper accreditation. For more information on CaRDI, our program areas, and past publications, please visit: www.cardi.cornell.edu. Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action educator and employer. a Susan Christopherson is Chair of The Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. ([email protected]), Kushan Dave is a Master of Regional Planning candidate at Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. ([email protected]) CARDI REPORTS/ISSUE NUMBER 15/NOVEMBER 2014 iii CaRDI Reports Table of Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
  • Oregon's Oil: a Geographic View of Petroleum Distribution and Associated Risks

    Oregon's Oil: a Geographic View of Petroleum Distribution and Associated Risks

    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 2-21-1996 Oregon's Oil: A Geographic View of Petroleum Distribution and Associated Risks Paul M. Slyman Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Slyman, Paul M., "Oregon's Oil: A Geographic View of Petroleum Distribution and Associated Risks" (1996). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 5140. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6987 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES: The abstract and thesis of Paul M. Slyman for the Master of Science in Geography were presented February 21, 1996, and accepted by the thesis committee and the department. -~i. ... ~ ... I Dr. Martha Works Dr. Daniel Johnson/ Dr. James Strathman Representative, Office Graduate Studies DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: Daniel Johnson;"Chair, ~partment of Geography ********************************************************************** ACCEPTED FOR PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY BY THE LIBRARY on~~~~//99.C ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Paul M. Slyman for the Master of Science in Geography presented February 21, 1996. Title: Oregon's Oil: A Geographic View of Petroleum Distribution and Associated Risks Since no local crude oil sources exist, every drop of petroleum consumed in Oregon originates from outside sources and is distributed multi-modally to consumers. As population continues to increase and oil sources dwindle, this reliance may add financial and environmental risks to Oregonian' s quality of life.
  • Breaking the Bottleneck: the Future of Russia’S Oil Pipelines

    Breaking the Bottleneck: the Future of Russia’S Oil Pipelines

    CORS FINAL MACRO 12/10/97 4:21 PM Other International Issues BREAKING THE BOTTLENECK: THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA’S OIL PIPELINES I. INTRODUCTION Russia’s immense oil resources1 may be able to attract the hard currency needed to fuel its economic recovery. However, the net- work of oil pipelines necessary to export Russia’s oil deteriorated along with the rest of Russia’s oil industry infrastructure in the final Soviet years.2 Furthermore, the ex-Soviet bureaucracy now managing the dilapidated pipelines is holding tightly to its control over the net- work.3 Progress in pipeline policy is complicated by the shifts in Rus- sia this decade to a market economy and to constitutional federal- ism.4 In light of these obstacles, this Note examines the current regulation of Russia’s oil pipelines and comments on methods that might assist Russia in formulating its future oil pipeline policy.5 1. For much of the post-World War II period, the Soviet Union was the largest single producer of crude oil in the world. See Trade and Investment Patterns in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Sectors of the Energy-Producing States of the Former Soviet Union, United States International Trade Commission Pub. 2656, Inv. No. 332-338 (June 1993) at 1-1 [hereinafter USITC Report]. Most of the former Soviet Union’s oil is now found on Russian soil. In 1991, for instance, Russia produced 91% of the oil produced in the former Soviet Un- ion. See id. at 2-3. The former Soviet Union’s oil reserves are estimated at six percent of world totals.