Читать книгу Economically and Environmentally Sustainable Enhanced Oil Recovery - M. R. Islam - Страница 32

Captain Edwin L. Drake, a career railroad conductor who devised a way to drill a practical oil well, is usually credited to have drilled the first-ever oil well in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. Curiously, initial “thirst” for oil was for seeking a replacement of natural oils (e.g. from whales) as a lubricating agent. Recall the need for such oil owing to a surge of mechanical devices in mid 1800s. Even if one discards the notion that petroleum was in use for thousands of years, there is credible evidence that the first well in modern age was drilled in Canada. Canadian, Charles Nelson Tripp, a foreman of a stove foundry, was the first in North America to have recovered commercial petroleum products. The drilling was completed in 1851 at Enniskillen Township, near Sarnia, in present-day Ontario, which was known as Canada West at that time. Soon after the “mysterious” “gum bed” was discovered, first oil company was incorporated in Canada through a parliamentary charter. Unlike Captain Drake’s project, this particular project was a refining endeavor in order to extract fuel from bitumen. Tripp became the president of this company on December 18, 1854. The charter empowered the company to explore for asphalt beds and oil and salt springs, and to manufacture oils, naphtha paints, burning fluids. Even though this company (International Mining and Manufacturing) was not a financial success, the petroleum products received an honorable mention for excellence at the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1855. Failure of the company can be attributed to several factors contributed to the downfall of the operation. Lack of roads in the area made the movement of machinery and equipment to the site extremely difficult. And after every heavy rain the area turned into a swamp and the gum beds made drainage extremely slow. This added to the difficulty of distributing finished products. It was at that time that need for processing petroleum products in order to make it more fluid surfaced.

In 1855, James Miller Williams took over the business of refining petroleum in Lambton County from Charles Nelson Tripp. At that time, it was a small operation, with 150 gallon/day asphalt production. Williams set out during a drought in September 1858 to dig a drinking water well down-slope from it but struck free oil instead, thereby becoming the first person to produce a commercial oil well in North America, one year before Edwin Drake. Also of significance the fact that he set up Canada’s first refinery of crude oil to produce kerosene, based on the laboratory work of Abraham Gesner. Interestingly, Gesner was a medical doctor by training (from London) but took special interest in geology. He is the one credited to have invented kerosene to take over the previous market, saturated with whale oil - a wholly natural product. It was this Gesner, who in 1850 created the Kerosene Gas Light Company and began installing lighting in the streets in Halifax and other cities. By 1854, he had expanded to the United States where he created the North American Kerosene Gas Light Company at Long Island, New York. Demand grew to where his company’s capacity to produce became a problem, but the discovery of petroleum, from which kerosene could be more easily produced, solved the supply problem. This was the first time in recorded history artificial processing technique was introduced in refining petroleum products. Gesner did not use the term “refined” but made fortune out of the sale of this artificial processing. In 1861, he published a book titled: A Practical Treatise on Coal, Petroleum and Other Distilled Oils, which became a standard reference in the field. As Gesner’s company was absorbed into the petroleum monopoly, Standard Oil, he returned to Halifax, where he was appointed a professor of natural history at Dalhousie University. It is this university that was founded on pirated money while other pirates continued to be hanged by the Royal Navy at Point Pleasant Park’s Black Rock Beach as late as 1844.⁶

Going back to Williams story, his well, called Williams No. 1 well at Oil Springs, Ontario was the first commercial oil well in North America.

The Sarnia Observer and Lambton Advertiser, quoting from the Woodstock Sentinel, published on page two on August 5, 1858:

An important discovery has just been made in the Township of Enniskillen.

A short time since, a party, in digging a well at the edge of the bed of Bitumen, struck upon a vein of oil, which combining with the earth forms the Bitumen.

Some historians challenge Canada’s claim to North America’s first oil field, arguing that Pennsylvania’s famous Drake Well was the continent’s first. But there is evidence to support Williams, not least of which is that the Drake well did not come into production until August 28, 1859. The controversial point might be that Williams found oil above bedrock while “Colonel” Edwin Drake’s well located oil within a bedrock reservoir. History is not clear as to when Williams abandoned his Oil Springs refinery and transferred his operations to Hamilton. However, he was certainly operating there by 1860.

Historically, the ability of oil to flow freely has fascinated developers and at the same time ability of gas to leak and go out of control has intimidated them. Such fascination and intimidation continues today while nuclear electricity is considered to be benign while natural gas considered to be the source of global warming, all because it contains carbon - the very component nature needs for creating an organic product. Scientifically, however, the need for refining stems from the necessity of producing clean flame. Historically, Arabs were reportedly the first ones to use refined olive oil. They used exclusively natural chemicals in order to refine oil (Islam et al., 2010). We have seen in the previous sections, the onset of unsustainable technologies is marked by the introduction of electricity and other inventions of the plastic era.

For its part, natural gas seeps in Ontario County, New York were first reported in 1669 by the French explorer, M. de La Salle, and a French missionary, M. de Galinee, who were shown the springs by local Native Americans. This is the debut of natural gas industry in North America. Subsequently, William Hart, a local gunsmith, drilled the first commercial natural gas well in the United States in 1821 in Fredonia, Chautauqua County. He drilled a 27-foot deep well in an effort to get a larger flow of gas from a surface seepage of natural gas. This was the first well intentionally drilled to obtain natural gas. Hart built a simple gas meter and piped the natural gas to an innkeeper on the stagecoach route from Buffalo to Cleveland. Because there was no pipeline network in place, this gas was almost invariably used to light streets at night. However, in late 1800s, electric lamps were beginning to be used for lighting streets. This led to gas producers scrambling for alternate market. Shallow natural gas wells were soon drilled throughout the Chautauqua County shale belt. This natural gas was transported to businesses and street lights in Fredonia at the cost of US$.50 a year for each light (Islam, 2014). In the mean time, in mid-1800s, Robert Bunsen invented the “Bunsen burner” that helped produce artificial flame by controlling air inflow in an open flame. This was significant because it helped producing intense heat and controlling the flame at the same time.

This led ways to develop usage of natural gas for both domestic and commercial use.

The original Hart gas well produced until 1858 and supplied enough natural gas for a grist mill and for lighting in four shops. By the 1880s, natural gas was being piped to towns for lighting and heat, and to supply energy for the drilling of oil wells. Natural gas production from sandstone reservoirs in the Medina formation was discovered in 1883 in Erie County. Medina production was discovered in Chautauqua County in 1886. By the early years of the twentieth century, Medina production was established in Cattaraugus, Genesee, and Ontario counties.

Gas in commercial quantities was first produced from the Trenton limestone in Oswego County in 1889 and in Onondaga County in 1896. By the end of the nineteenth century, natural gas companies were developing longer intrastate pipelines and municipal natural gas distribution systems. The first gas storage facility in the United States was developed in 1916 in the depleted Zoar gas field south of Buffalo.

By the late 1920s, declining production in New York’s shallow gas wells prompted gas companies to drill for deeper gas reservoirs in Allegany, Schuyler, and Steuben counties. The first commercial gas production from the Oriskany sandstone was established in 1930 in Schuyler County. By the 1940s, deeper gas discoveries could no longer keep pace with the decline in shallow gas supplies. Rapid depletion and over drilling of deep gas pools prompted gas companies in western New York to sign long-term contracts to import gas from out of state. It took the construction of pipelines to bring natural gas to new markets. Although one of the first lengthy pipelines was built in 1891 - it was 120 miles long and carried gas from fields in central Indiana to Chicago - there were very few pipelines built until after World War II in the 1940s.

Similar to all other developments in modern Europe, World War II brought about changes that led to numerous inventions and technological breakthroughs in the area of petroleum production and processing. Improvements in metals, welding techniques, and pipe making during the War made pipeline construction more economically attractive. After World War II, the nation began building its pipeline network. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, thousands of miles of pipeline were constructed throughout the United States. Today, the US pipeline network, laid end-to-end, would stretch to the moon and back twice. The phenomenon of pipelining is of significance. Because of this, there has been tremendous surge in the corrosion control industry.

Onondaga reef fields were discovered by seismic prospecting in the late 1960s. Seven reef fields have been discovered to date in southern New York. Today, the Onondaga reef fields and many Oriskany fields are largely depleted and are being converted to gas storage fields. This state of depletion was achieved after a long production period and extensive hydraulic fracturing throughout 1970s and 1980s. These were considered to be tight gas sands. Recently, the same technology has made a comeback (Islam, 2014). The rapid development of New York’s current Trenton-Black River gas play is made possible by technological advances in three-dimensional (3D) seismic imaging, horizontal drilling, and well completion. The surge in domestic oil and gas production through “fracking” emerges from technologies popularized in the 1970s. However, 3D seismic or multilateral drilling technology was not in place at the time. Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.6a show how natural gas production evolved in the state of New York throughout history.

In this figure, the first spike relates to discovery of Devonian shale. That spike led to a quick depletion. In early 1970s, production from “tight gas” formations led to another more sustained spike in gas recovery. During that period, extensive hydraulic was introduced as a means for increasing productivity. However, it was not considered to be a reservoir production enhancement scheme. In 2000, at the nadir of oil price, yet another spike took place in the state of New York. This related to the development of Trenton-Black River field. This gas production scheme would lead to record gas production in that state in 2005. This spike continued and led the way to producing domestic gas and oil from unconventional reservoirs in United States. Today, production from unconventional gas reservoirs has taken an unprecedented turn. In 2013, production from shale gas, tight gas, and coalbed methane (CBM) accounted for domestic production surpassing imports for the first time in 30 years. Shale gas, tight oil, or other unconventional resources are found in many of the states that had already produced from conventional sources.

Figure 2.6 History of natural gas production from New York.

Figure 2.6a History of oil production in New York (from EIA, 2018).

While oil and natural gas opportunities in New York remain bright, interest is growing regarding other subsurface resources in the State, such as geothermal energy, compressed air energy storage in geologic settings, and CO₂ sequestration in geologic formations to address concerns around climate change. The links between these rest on a basic understanding of the State’s geology and evolving applications of technologies and practices originally associated with oil and gas exploration and production. The Challenges Ahead The current pace and scale of natural gas development in New York presents challenges for all stakeholders: private landowners, exploration and production companies, State and local government, and the public, to protect the environment and support the infrastructure and resources of local communities. Consequently, New York State government has the obligation to manage natural resources, protect environmental quality and improve public health while facilitating the flow of benefits from environmentally sound natural gas and oil development. To accomplish this mandate, the State of New York requires that development proceed with protection of the environment and the public interest as the primary focus. During the Obama era, the resurgence of natural gas and oil development in New York was facilitated by proactive state agencies that ensure environmentally responsible development and protect the interests of all stakeholders, and by exploration and production companies that engage the community and are responsive to public concerns. However, by in large, these measures meant conventional definition of sustainability and illogical attachment to excessive regulations. With President Trump in Office, changes have taken place and the debate over deregulation has resurfaced.

Not unexpectedly, President Trump’s policies have been severely criticized by the ‘left’. Recently, Lipton et al. (2018) critiqued the most ‘negative’ aspects of President Trump’s policies. The overwhelming theme behind federal government moves has been that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, which between them regulate much of the intersection between the environment and the economy, have compromised environmental integrity. It is alleged that the rule changes have touched nearly every aspect of environmental protection, including air pollution caused by power plants and the oil and gas industry, water pollution caused by coal mines, and toxic chemicals and pesticides used by farmers nationwide. As Islam and Khan (2019) pointed out, such criticisms are premised on the assumption that Carbon-based energy sources are inherently unsustainable whereas any non-carbon energy sources are sustainable/renewable. In this narrative, coal has become the central item of debate. While President Obama and his administration viewed coal as the primary culprit behind climate change, Trump administration has defended the coal industry and promoted economic strategies that include coal in all its applications, including coal-burning power plants.

During the post financial collapse era of 2008 onward, tremendous progress has been made in USA, mainly in areas of unconventional oil and gas production. Central to this boost is the usage of massive fracturing, using horizontal wells and multilaterals. Interestingly, the fracking technology is nothing new. Many decades ago, such technologies have been in place. However, previously, natural materials such as water and sand were used. Today, such materials have been replaced with synthetic polymeric fluids and synthetic proppants (Picture 2.2).

Picture 2.2 shows how these artificial proppants with cylindrical shape are claimed to create better fractures. Figure 2.7 demonstrates that sands have the worst fracture efficiency, while the rod-shaped proppants have the highest efficiency. In this process, material cost of fracturing has skyrocketed and accounts for bulk of the fracturing scheme. The same can be said about fracturing fluid. It turns out water is not conducive to creating fractures in shale formations. In 1976, the US government started the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public–private hydraulic fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That was the beginning of fracturing shale formations that gave boost in gas production throughout late 1970s and 1980s. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as “slickwater fracturing” that involves adding chemicals to water thereby allowing increase to the fluid flow, which made the shale gas extraction economical. These chemicals are both expensive and toxic to the environment.

Picture 2.2 Typical proppants, used during fracturing.

Figure 2.7 Effect of proppant geometry on fracturing efficiency.

The fracturing fluid varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, the conditions of the specific well being fractured, and the water characteristics. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals. A typical fracturing operation involves the following chemicals:

 Acids: hydrochloric acid (for carbonate cements) or acetic acid (for silicate cement) is used in the prefracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.

 Sodium chloride: delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.

 Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers: reduces turbulence (lower Reynold’s number), while increasing proppant transport in the tubing or drill pipe.

 Ethylene glycol: prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.

 Borate salts: thermal stabilizers that maintain fluid viscosity under high temperature conditions.

 Sodium and potassium carbonates: used for maintaining effectiveness of cross-linkers that stabilize the polymer.

 Glutaraldehyde: used as disinfectant of the water to prevent bacterial growth and subsequent biodegradation of the fluid.

 Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents: increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.

 Citric acid: used for corrosion prevention as it is a milder form for corrosion inhibitors.

 Isopropanol: increases the viscosity of the fracturing fluid.

The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol. New generation of chemicals include: Conventional linear gels (carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose), guar or its derivatives (hydroxypropyl guar, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar), etc. These gels have higher viscosity at pH of 9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to 3–4 so that the cross-links are broken and the gel is less viscous and can be pumped out. Organometallic cross-linked fluid zirconium, chromium, antimony, titanium salts are known to cross-link the guar-based gels. The cross-linking mechanism is not reversible. Aluminum phosphate–ester oil gels. Aluminum phosphate and ester oils are slurried to form a cross-linked gel. These are one of the first known gelling systems.

As stated earlier, hydraulic fracturing has been used for decades to stimulate increased production from existing oil or gas wells. This technique, along with other well stimulation techniques, has been regulated to varying degrees through state oil and gas codes. The detail and scope of applicable regulations vary across the states, and some states have regulated “well stimulation” broadly without addressing hydraulic “fracturing” explicitly. State regulators have noted that hydraulic fracturing operations are regulated through provisions that address various production activities, including requirements regarding well construction (e.g., casing and cementing), well stimulation (e.g., hydraulic fracturing), and well operation (e.g., pressure testing and blowout prevention). Nonetheless, state groundwater protection officials also have reported that development of shale gas and tight oil using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, in combination with directional drilling, has posed new challenges for the management and protection of water resources. Consequently, many of the major producing states have revised or are in the process of revising their oil and gas laws and regulations to respond to these advances in oil and natural gas production technologies and related changes in the industry.

The debate over the groundwater contamination risks associated with hydraulic fracturing operations has been fueled, in part, by the lack of scientific studies to assess more thoroughly the current practices and related complaints and uncertainties. To help address this issue, Congress has directed the EPA to conduct a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. The “hydraulic fracturing” debate also has been complicated by terminology. Many who express concern over the potential environmental impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing do not differentiate the well stimulation process of “fracking” from the full range of activities associated with unconventional oil and gas exploration and production.

In summary, the petroleum era has been about profiting from processing, rather than getting value from the energy resource. Even for the chemicals used to augment production have become entirely artificial, leading to sustainability concerns both in terms of environment and economics.