Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
1981-04-15 EA Plan of Development Production
United States Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary Minerals Management Service 1340 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, California 90017 OCS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT July 8, 1982 Operator Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Plan Type Development/Production Lease OCS-P 0296 Block 34 N., 37 W. Pl atfonn Edith Date Submitted April 15, 1981 Prepared by the Office of the Deputy Minerals Manager, Field Operations, Pacific OCS Region Related Environmental Documents U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Environmental Impact Report - Environmental Assessment, Shell OCS Beta Unit Development (prepared jointly with agencies of the State of California, 1978) 3 Volumes Environmental Assessment, Exploration, for Lease OCS-P 0296 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Proposed 1975 OCS Oil and Gas General Lease Sale Offshore Southern California (OCS Sale No. 35), 5 Volumes Proposed 1979 OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore Southern California (OCS Sale No. 48), 5 Volumes Proposed 1982 OCS Oil and Gas General Lease Sale Offshore Southern California (OCS Sale No. 68), 2 Volumes u.c. Santa Cruz - BLM, Study of Marine Mammals and Seabirds of the Southern California Bight ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. OPERATOR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT/PRODUCTION, PROPOSED PLATFORM EDITH, LEASE OCS-P 0296, BETA AREA, SAN PEDRO BAY, OFFSHORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Table of Contents Page I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ••••••••••••••••••••• 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT •••••••••••••••••••• 12 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29 IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION •••••••••••••••••••• 46 v. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS •••••••••••••• 48 VI. CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48 VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONS!) ••••••••••••••• 51 VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION ••••••••••••••••• 55 IX. -
View Annual Report
ANNUAL 2017 REPORT Financial Highlights (Millions of dollars and shares, except per share data) 20171 20161 20151 Revenue Dividends to in billions Shareholders Revenue $ 20,620 $ 15,887 $ 23,633 in millions Operating Income (Loss) $ 1,362 $ (6,778) $ (165) Amounts Attributable to Company Shareholders: Loss from Continuing Operations $ (444) $ (5,761) $ (666) $614 $626 $620 $15.9 Net Loss $ (463) $ (5,763) $ (671) $20.6 $23.6 Diluted Income per Share Attributable to Company Shareholders: Loss from Continuing Operations $ (0.51) $ (6.69) $ (0.78) Net Loss $ (0.53) $ (6.69) $ (0.79) Cash Dividends per Share $ 0.72 $ 0.72 $ 0.72 Diluted Common Shares Outstanding 870 861 853 Working Capital2 $ 5,915 $ 7,654 $ 14,733 Capital Expenditures $ 1,373 $ 798 $ 2,184 Total Debt $ 10,942 $ 12,384 $ 15,355 17 16 15 17 16 15 Debt to Total Capitalization3 57% 57% 50% Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization $ 1,556 $ 1,503 $ 1,835 4 Total Capitalization $ 19,291 $ 21,832 $ 30,850 Capital Expenditures in billions 1 Reported results during these periods include impairments and other charges of $647 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, merger-related costs and termination fee of $4.1 billion and impairments and other charges of $3.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2016, and impairments and other charges of $2.2 billion for the year ended December 31, 2015. 2 Working Capital is defined as total current assets less total current liabilities. $1.4 $0.8 $2.2 3 Debt to Total Capitalization is defined as total debt divided by the sum of total debt plus total shareholders’ equity. -
JX Report for a Sustainable Future 2010 JX Report for a Sustainable Future 2010 the JX Group Was Formed in April 2010 in Quest of a Sustainable Future
2010 Report for a Sustainable Future JX JX Holdings, Inc. JX Report for a Sustainable Future 2010 The JX Group was formed in April 2010 in quest of a sustainable future. Under our new mission statement, the JX Group aims to make major advances in the fields of energy, resources and materials. Guided by the slogan of “The Future of Energy, Resources and Materials,” the JX Group is determined to shape the future. JX Group Mission Statement JX Group Slogan JX Group Mission Statement JX Group will contribute to the development of a sustainable economy and society through innovation in the areas of energy, resources and materials. JX Group Values Our actions will respect the EARTH. Ethics Advanced ideas Relationship with society Trustworthy products/services Harmony with the environment About JX The name “JX” symbolizes the JX Group’s mission statement. The letter “J” represents our position as one of the world’s largest integrated energy, resources and materials business groups from Japan, while the letter “X” represents our willingness to pioneer new frontiers, our future growth and development potential and innovation. About the JX Corporate Brand Mark The JX corporate brand mark symbolizes the continuity of the global environment and the JX Group based on the JX Group’s mission statement. The design, in which the “JX” logo overlaps with a sphere, represents the JX Group’s commitment to a green earth—i.e., our contribution to the development of a sustainable economy and society, through innovation in the areas of energy, resources and materials. * The JX corporate brand mark is common to JX Holdings, Inc., JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corporation, JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation and JX Nippon Mining & Metals Corporation. -
Appendix 3: Projection Factors for Point and Area Sources (Adopted
APPENDIX 3 PROJECTION FACTORS FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES Eastern Research Group, Inc. PROJECTION FACTORS FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES Final Prepared for: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air Quality Division MC-164, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 August 16, 2010 ERG No. 0227.03.027.006 TCEQ Contract No. 582-07-84003 Work Order No. 582-07-84003-FY10-27 PROJECTION FACTORS FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES Final Prepared for: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air Quality Division MC-164, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Attn: Mr. Greg Lauderdale Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 275 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 August 16, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 2.0 DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................................2 2.1 Economy.com Economic Data and Projections............................................................ 3 2.2 Texas Industrial Production Index................................................................................ 3 2.3 Annual Energy Outlook ................................................................................................ 4 2.4 EGAS Model................................................................................................................ -
Refugio Oil Spill Response & Recovery
Refugio Oil Spill Response & Recovery Incident Summary • On 19 May 2015 at 1243, report to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services • The report indicated a pipeline rupture had occurred near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, CA • The responsible party (Plains All American Pipeline) estimated the total release at 500 barrels (21,000 gallons) of crude oil on the shoreside of Hwy 101 which then flowed into the Pacific Ocean • 23x7 mile (138 square mile) fishery closure Incident Summary (con’t) • Initial reports estimated a sheen to be 3.5 NM along the beach and 50-100 yards into the water • Revised worst-case release: 101,000 gal (2,400 bbl) • On May 19, Governor Brown declared a State of Emergency for Santa Barbara County • On June 5, Governor Brown issued a subsequent Executive Order to Further Expedite Oil Spill Recovery Efforts in Santa Barbara County Location of Incident (Approximately 25 miles west of Santa Barbara) Incident Command Post Shoreline below the cliff Photo Courtesy of CDFW‐OSPR Refugio State Beach Photo Courtesy of NOAA Significant Environmental, Cultural, Historical & Social Concerns • 2 Marine Protected Areas (Kashtayit & Naples) • 23‐mile by 7‐mile mile fishery closure • Wildlife impacts – birds, mammals, Grunion Spawning • Chumash Indian Tribe – 2,000 ‐ 5,000 members coastal members – Inhabitants of SB Coast for over 13,000 years • Varied Beach composition & environments: – Cobble, Rock, Sand, Cliffs, Kelp, Marinas, Parks Areas of Special Interest/Concerns Volunteers Extensive Fisheries Closure Zone Cultural and Tribal Integration Wildlife Operation - marine mammals NGO and community involvement At Maximum Effort • Personnel – 1287 in field – 129 in ICP • Vessels on water – 21 skimmers – 2 support barges • 6,000 ft boom deployed • 5 SCAT teams deployed • 23 x 7 mile fishery closure • 1000‐ft temporary flight restriction within a 5‐mile radius of Refugio Beach – Daily responder overflights Unified Command Established USCG Sector LA‐LB Sector Commander, EPA Region 9, CA DFW, Santa Barbara Co OEM, Plains All American. -
Advancing Artificial Lift
Advancing artificial lift Sven Olson, Leistritz Advanced Technologies Corp., USA, explains how artificial lift and gathering systems can be optimised through the use of multiphase pumps. he application of artificial lift in oil and gas exposure for well service and interventions. Today’s trend production continues to grow as operators strive to for optimising production and total recovery is to further Tmaximise recovery and the use of existing facilities extend the outreach from a single pad, which results in the and processes, as well as accessing tight formations and low application of more deviated and horizontal drilling. This permeability shale assets. Drill centres and pad production leads to complex well architecture with long horizontal are becoming very common as producers work to reduce sections, which makes lifting with conventional downhole facility footprints and minimise the environmental impact. products challenging, and in turn creates a whole new set However, along with the benefits of growing numbers of of problems facing the operator. Depending on the specific artificial lift installations also comes added complexity in production scenario of a formation, different artificial lift producing an asset, which leads to increased operator cost technologies are used. Figure 1 provides a depiction of a typical split of lifting alternatives for an operator producing 8000 onshore wells. Over 5 million wells are on artificial lift worldwide; in North America alone, it is estimated that 85% of all wells use artificial lift. In onshore applications the SRPs (sucker rod pumps) dominate, however ESPs (electrical submersible pumps) or PCPs (progressing cavity pumps) are increasingly gaining ground. Other commonly used technologies include velocity strings, plungers, jet pumps and gas lift systems. -
U.S.-Canada Cross- Border Petroleum Trade
U.S.-Canada Cross- Border Petroleum Trade: An Assessment of Energy Security and Economic Benefits March 2021 Submitted to: American Petroleum Institute 200 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001 Submitted by: Kevin DeCorla-Souza ICF Resources L.L.C. 9300 Lee Hwy Fairfax, VA 22031 U.S.-Canada Cross-Border Petroleum Trade: An Assessment of Energy Security and Economic Benefits This report was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API) 2 U.S.-Canada Cross-Border Petroleum Trade: An Assessment of Energy Security and Economic Benefits Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 4 II. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6 III. Overview of U.S.-Canada Petroleum Trade ................................................................. 7 U.S.-Canada Petroleum Trade Volumes Have Surged ........................................................... 7 Petroleum Is a Major Component of Total U.S.-Canada Bilateral Trade ................................. 8 IV. North American Oil Production and Refining Markets Integration ...........................10 U.S.-Canada Oil Trade Reduces North American Dependence on Overseas Crude Oil Imports ..................................................................................................................................10 Cross-Border Pipelines Facilitate U.S.-Canada Oil Market Integration...................................14 -
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) in Re: ) Chapter 11 ) WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ) Case No
Case 20-32021 Document 362 Filed in TXSB on 05/21/20 Page 1 of 147 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ) Case No. 20-32021 (DRJ) et al.,1 ) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) GLOBAL NOTES AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS, METHODOLOGIES, AND DISCLAIMERS REGARDING THE DEBTORS’ SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS The Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (collectively with attachments, the “Schedules”) and the Statements of Financial Affairs (collectively with attachments, the “Statements,” and together with the Schedules, the “Schedules and Statements”), filed by the above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), were prepared pursuant to section 521 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and rule 1007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) by the Debtors’ management, with the assistance of the Debtors’ advisors, and are unaudited. These Global Notes and Statement of Limitations, Methodologies, and Disclaimers Regarding the Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs (the “Global Notes”) are incorporated by reference in, and comprise an integral part of, each Debtor’s respective Schedules and Statements, and should be referred to and considered in connection with any review of the Schedules and Statements. While the Debtors’ management has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the Schedules and Statements are as accurate and complete as possible under the circumstances, based on information that was available at the time of preparation, inadvertent errors, inaccuracies, or omissions may have occurred or the Debtors may discover subsequent information that requires material changes to the Schedules and Statements. -
Check out This Factsheet on the Project
The GETFACTS ABOUT PLAINSPIPELINE’S NEW THREAT TO COASTAL CALIFORNIA Plains All American Pipeline caused California’s worst coastal oil spill in 25 years – the Refugio Oil Spill of 2015 – and now it wants a second chance to spill again. anta Barbara County is processing Plains’ application to build another coastal oil pipeline that would restart Sdrilling from six decrepit offshore oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. Houston-based Plains was criminally negligent in allowing its previous coastal oil pipeline to become corroded and fail, coating Santa Barbara area beaches in crude and killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals. It doesn’t deserve another opportunity to kill threatened wildlife, poison our communities and wreck the climate. THE PROJECT • Plains All American Pipeline is proposing to build more than 123 miles of new oil pipeline through Santa Barbara (73 miles), San Luis Obispo (37 miles) and Kern counties (14 miles), transporting heavy crude pumped from offshore drilling platforms to onshore processing facilities. Plains also proposes to abandon in place about 123 miles of its old failed oil pipelines. • The new pipeline will mostly follow the same route as the old broken pipeline – which was built based on environmental studies done in the late ‘80s – in a rapidly changing coastal zone that is now being affected by coastal erosion, sea level rise and other impacts from climate change. HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS • Investigators responding to a massive coastal oil spill near Refugio State Beach in 2015 found the source, Plains’ Pipeline 901, to be severely corroded and poorly maintained. In September 2018, a Santa Barbara jury found Plains guilty of a felony for failing to properly maintain its pipeline and eight misdemeanor charges for a delay in reporting the spill and for its deadly impact on protected wildlife. -
Options for Removing Accumulated Fluid and Improving Flow in Gas Wells
Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners Options for Removing Accumulated Fluid and Improving Flow in Gas Wells Executive Summary At different stages in the life of a gas well, various alternatives to repeated well venting can be deployed to When first completed, many natural gas wells have move accumulated liquids to the surface. These options sufficient reservoir pressure to flow formation fluids include: (water and liquid hydrocarbon) to the surface along with the produced gas. As gas production continues, the Foaming agents or surfactants reservoir pressure declines, and as pressure declines, the velocity of the fluid in the well tubing decreases. Velocity tubing Eventually, the gas velocity up the production tubing is no longer sufficient to lift liquid droplets to the surface. Plunger lift, operated manually or with ‘smart’ well Liquids accumulate in the tubing, creating additional automation pressure drop, slowing gas velocity, and raising pressure in the reservoir surrounding the well perforations and Downhole pumps, which include reciprocating (beam) inside the casing. As the bottom well pressure approaches pumps and rotating (progressive cavity) pumps. reservoir shut-in pressure, gas flow stops and all liquids accumulate at the bottom of the tubing. A common Natural Gas STAR Partners report significant methane approach to temporarily restore flow is to vent the well to emission reductions and economic benefits from the atmosphere (well “blowdown”), which produces implementing one or more lift options to remove substantial methane emissions. The U.S. Inventory of accumulated liquids in gas wells. Not only are vented Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990—2008 methane emissions reduced or eliminated, but these lift estimates 9.6 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of annual methane techniques can provide the additional benefit of increased emissions from venting of low pressure gas wells. -
UKCS Technology Insights
UKCS Technology Insights April 2019 Unless identified elsewhere, all data is from the OGA UKSS 2017 and 2018 Cover photos: High frequency FWI image – courtesy of DownUnder Geosolutions using Capreolus 3D data from TGS Ocean bottom nodes – courtesy of Magseis Fairfield Riserless mud recovery – courtesy of Enhanced Drilling Carbon composite pipe – courtesy of Magma Global Contents Foreword 5 1. Seismic and exploration 22 Executive summary 6 2. Well drilling and completions 28 Operators’ technology plans 8 3. Subsea systems 34 Existing technologies for MER UK 12 4. Installations and topsides 40 Emerging technologies – MER UK priorities 14 5. Reservoir and well management 46 OGA’s technology stewardship 16 6. Facilities management 52 The Oil & Gas Technology Centre (OGTC) 18 7. Well plugging and abandonment 58 Technology plan feedback 21 8. Facilities decommissioning 64 Conclusions 70 Appendix - Technology spend 72 Image courtesy of Airbourne Oil & Gas Foreword I am pleased to see constant progress in the way our industry is OGTC, MER UK Taskforces and industry sponsors. A small maturing and deploying new technologies for the UK Continental technical team will be established to measure progress on all key Shelf (UKCS). This important effort is being supported by the objectives. Ultimately, these objectives will be followed up and coordinated work of the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), the monitored through the OGA stewardship to further encourage Technology Leadership Board (TLB) and the Oil & Gas Technology uptake and share best practice. Centre (OGTC). There are huge prizes in reserves growth, production value and, This year’s Technology Insights summarises the rich content of most importantly, safe asset operation and life extension from the UKCS operators’ technology plans, submitted through the OGA use of current and new technologies. -
2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL August 17, 2017 Ms. Kelly Hammerle National Program Manager Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 45600 Woodland Road Sterling, VA 20166 Submitted online at http:www.regulations.gov Re: NRDC Comments on the Request for Information and Comments on the Preparation of the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Dear Ms. Hammerle: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and its more than 2.5 million members and online activists, we submit this letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (“BOEM”) regarding the Request for Information for the Preparation of the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (“Program”). For more than three decades, NRDC has monitored and engaged in policy processes related to leasing, exploring and producing oil and gas from our nation’s oceans. We object to the Administration’s initiation of a whole new process to develop a Five-Year Program so soon after the current Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2017-2022) was put in place (January 2017). An extensive, multi-year public process preceded the adoption of the current program, during which over 1.4 million comments were submitted opposing new drilling. The program finalized at the end of this lengthy public process contains no lease sales in the following areas: the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Bristol Bay or Eastern Gulf. New offshore drilling and leasing threatens billion dollar coastal economies, would open fragile and priceless coastal ecosystems to damage from pollution and spills, and would accelerate global climate disruption.