Supporting information for: Energy intensity and greenhouse gas

emissions from thermal enhanced oil recovery

Adam R. Brandta1 Stefan Unnaschb
a

Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University

Life Cycle Associates, LLC, Portolla Valley, CA

Introduction
In this supporting information, we provide additional data on California TEOR projects, as
collected from California and U.S. federal datasets.

Fuel cycle calculations

The full fuel cycle emissions are calculated with the following equation:
EMU = (EMC + VC+ TCrude) SRBOB LFRBOB LFT&D + EMR LFT&D + T&D
Where
EMU = Upstream Fuel Cycle, WTT
EMC = Crude Production
VC = Venting around well casing
TCrude = Crude Transport
SRBOB = Crude oil/RBOB

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: abrandt@stanford.edu, fax: +1 650 724 8251

S1

LFRBOB= Loss Factor, Refining

LFT&D = Loss Factor, T&D
EMR = Refining
T&D = Transport and Distribution

Details for the California case

An important method of producing steam in California TEOR operations is using cogeneration.
The electric power is used on site for oil field operations and the excess is exported to the power
grid. The steam generation efficiencies for cogeneration systems are lower than those of OTSGs
because electricity is also being produced. No empirical data are available for steam generation
quantities, so rated values from DOGGR datasets are used. DOGGR reports [1, pp. 238-239]
list 48 cogeneration projects. We remove 3 of these projects as outliers and plot the calculated
steam generation efficiencies below in Figure S1.2

DOGGR data do not provide actual energy content of steam generated, instead they give mass of
water converted to steam per unit time (lbs/h). In order to convert to energy content of steam for
Figure S1, the following assumptions were made: steam energy content = 0.32 MmBtu /bbl and
steam generation capacity factor = 90%. These default assumptions resulted in non-physical
total cogeneration efficiencies (i.e., > 1) for the three outlier cases. For the same reason, some of

The outliers removed are the Poso Creek, Jasmin, and one generator in the Midway-Sunset field (12.5 MW).
These fields result in erroneous efficiencies (total cogeneration efficiency > 1) if our default steam quality
assumptions are made, so they are removed. Clearly, they are producing steam at lower qualities than our
assumed values.

S2

the efficiencies in Figure S1 are likely too high, as they are likely generating steam with lower
energy content (e.g., lower quality or pressure) than our assumed value.

Electricity co-production
Electricity is produced in cogeneration-based TEOR projects. This electricity co-production
must receive a credit because any net power exported to the grid offsets power production
elsewhere, lowering GHG emissions elsewhere. The amount of power co-produced varies by the
design of the project. Some projects result in very high power production, while others mostly
generate steam.

The rated power generation efficiencies of the same 45 projects (48 total projects less three
outliers discussed above) are plotted in Figure S2 [1]. These power efficiencies were computed
directly from DOGGR data and do not reflect the actual operating conditions. EIA data from
2006 [2-3] on actual electricity generation (in MWh) and energy consumption (in mmBtu) were
found for 40 of the 45 included projects. These empirical data were used to calculate empirical
power generation efficiencies, which are plotted in Figure S3.
These empirical power production efficiencies can be combined with our calculation of the
steam generation efficiencies to arrive at semi-empirical3 figures for the overall cogeneration
efficiency of the cogeneration plants. These figures are plotted in Figure S4 for the 40 plants for
which there were both empirical data and data from DOGGR. Again, note that the very high
values are likely skewed upward by our assumption of constant steam energy content (i.e., the

We call these semi-empirical data because the power generation data are empirical but the steam generation
data are calculated using assumptions for the energy content of the steam.

S3

plants with very high power generation efficiencies likely generate steam of a lower quality than
our assumption, or generate less steam than our assumed capacity factor).

The amount of waste heat generated by the plants is given by the quantity 1 - cogen, which is the
quantity of energy that does not end up in steam or electricity. Central estimates of these three
quantities, steam, elect, and cogen, can be computed in a number of ways and for a number of
subsets of cogeneration projects. Note that these calculated empirical efficiencies for California
TEOR operations are congruent with reported values from the literature. Our values are
compared to those reported by Berry and Good [4] in the main paper.

Cogeneration percentage
Empirical data are not reported by DOGGR or EIA on the amounts of steam generated in
cogeneration and OTSG projects. If it is assumed that all cogeneration projects operate at full
capacity, then at most 43% of the produced steam in 2006 could have been generated at
cogeneration plants. For simplicity, we assume that 40% of the total steam is provided by
cogeneration plants, and 60% is generated in OTSGs.

Steam generation fuel type

Natural gas is the primary fuel used for steam cogeneration. All but 3 of the 48 operating
projects listed in DOGGR documents are fueled with natural gas, with the remainder being coalfired. The fraction of coal consumed varies depending on the weighting scheme used: 6.1% if
weighted by electricity generation capacity, 7.0% if by steam production capacity, and 5.0% if
S4

by fuel consumption rate. For these calculations, we weight coal production by the fuel
consumption rate, as this will most closely reflect the GHG emissions resulting from burning of
the coal.

Calculation of co-produced electricity

The energy consumption in cogeneration projects is higher than in OTSG generators because of
the co-produced electricity. The amount of electricity co-produced is equal to the total fuel
consumed per bbl produced, multiplied by elect.

Works Cited
1.

2.
3.
4.

DOGGR, 2006 Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor. 2007, California
Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources:
Sacramento, CA.
EIA, Annual electric generator data - Form EIA 860 Database. 2009, Energy
Information Administration.
EIA, Existing Generating Units in the United States by State, Company and Plant, 2006.
2009, Energy Information Administration.
Berry, J.P. and W.K. Good, Cogeneration potential in western Canada, in International
Heavy Oil Symposium. 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Calgary, Alberta.

S5

Table S1. Fraction of steam generation capacity that is provided by cogeneration plants.
Field

Steam injected
Steam cogen. capacity
Fraction of steam able to be
(bbl H2O)
(bbl H2O)
cogenerated (unitless)
Arroyo Grande
3472131
325359
0.09
Belridge, North
67815
0
Belridge, South
69887824
11888100
0.17
Cymric
55805283
6700634
0.12
Jasmin
168000
7257998
43.20a
Kern Front
7641243
8234073
1.08a
Kern River
92446918
75076028
0.81
Lost Hills
10642403
1651820
0.16
Lynch Canyon
96767
0
0.00b
McKittrick
8141832
3754137
0.46
Midway-Sunset
170065970
55900398
0.33
Mount Poso
254695
625689
2.46a
Orcutt
106216
0
0.00b
Coalinga
28635431
12939258
0.45
Poso Creek
3323545
7257998
2.18a
Round Mountain
7184515
0
0.00b
Placerita
10313847
7508274
0.73
Oxnard
133981
0
0.00b
San Ardo
20878400
13414782
0.64
Total
489266816
212534548
0.43
a These fields have more cogeneration capacity than was used to generate steam in 2006.
b These fields have no cogeneration capacity.

S6

Rated steam generation efficencies

Number of projects

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure S1. Rated steam generation efficiencies from DOGGR data [1]. Note that some of these
efficiencies are skewed upward by our default calculation assumption.

S7

18
Number of projects

16

Rated power generation efficiencies

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure S2. Power generation efficiencies as reported in DOGGR data [1]. These efficiencies are
based on the rated power output and fuel consumption rates, which do not correspond to real
world operating conditions.

S8

Number of projects

12

Emprical power generation efficiencies - EIA

10
8

6
4
2
0

Figure S3. Power generation efficiencies calculated from empirical EIA data [2-3]. Note that
these efficiencies are skewed lower than the reported efficiencies.

S9

14

Semi-emprical overall cogeneration efficiencies - EIA

Number of projects

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure S4. Semi-empirical calculations of overall cogeneration efficiencies for 40 TEOR

cogeneration plants.

S10