Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts Tagged ‘Oil Sands’

Will Malcolm Brinded be attending the funeral of his friend Gaddafi?

COMMENTS FROM A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL RETIREE ON CURRENT NEWS STORIES

Interested in the report on this leak they are trying to stop in Athabasca…

Oilsands leak turned mine to pond

Few people probably realise this is a nightmare and very likely unstoppable until the whole aquifer runs out of energy. Compare it with a blow-out.  I think it is a major mishap but have no other info then what I read in the article.

And the oilwells in Sakhalin going to sand is a disaster of great magnitude.

6 Oil Wells On Sakhalin Go Offline

With winter starting they presumably cannot re-enter the wells and try to fix it. It also shows the original design was flawed. I bet that even those atheist Russians (and the secular Shell folk as well)  are praying the same will not happen on the gaswells because then they really are f*cked!

Finally, will Malcolm Brinded be attending the funeral of his friend Gaddafi, or is Shell’s focus solely on its slick switch of allegiance to the new government?

Shell execs in Tripoli discuss Libya return


Shell set to plug leak that created pond at oilsands mine

Never-seen-before problem shows importance of additional seismic work in areas earmarked for mining

By Dave Cooper, edmontonjournal.com October 14, 2011

The flooded pit at Shell’s Muskeg River mine now holds about seven million cubic metres of salty water after a deep crack formed in the rock below the mined-out area last year, allowing water from a deep aquifer to flow upwards. It was the first time an oilsands firm has faced such a situation. Shell is building a drilling pad in the pond and will inject hot asphalt and then cement into the crack to permanently seal the leak next year. Photograph by: Shell Canada, edmontonjournal.com

EDMONTON – When water started appearing at the bottom of a Muskeg River mine pit north of Fort McMurray last October, crews assumed it was normal seepage from surrounding rock.

But it quickly became clear that this was something different — the water was not slowly rising from the basal aquifer, but flowing in under pressure, bubbling up from the bottom of the pit. It was salty, and it stank of rotten eggs, thanks to low levels of hydrogen sulphide.

So it was clearly coming from a deeper aquifer, and that meant it needed to be patched.

But how to do it?

Shell Canada tested the site to learn more about its geology and has recently come up with an innovative plan to permanently seal the crack in the floor of the mined-out pit, named cell 2A. It also has a way to deal with the seven million cubic metres (seven billion litres) of salty water now sitting in the former mine pit — a deep pond that is still growing at 200 cubic metres (200,000 litres) per hour.

“This situation in cell 2A was unexpected and something that has never happened to any oilsands mine before. But what we have now learned is going to change the way we operate, and I think the other firms will be doing the same,” said John Rhind, vice-president of heavy-oil operations for Shell Canada Energy, the operator and majority owner of the Albian Sands project.

And that means doing additional seismic work throughout areas that are planned for mining, so geologists can detect weak areas in the underlying limestone — the 150-metre-thick rock that lies above the deep saline aquifer that is the source of the water in cell 2A.

In this area of the Muskeg River mine, Shell had removed 40 metres of overburden and up to 70 metres of oilsands. Crews were cleaning out the bottom of the cell, down to the limestone base, when the water began gushing in.

“We immediately got the heavy equipment out of there. We had already started to build this cell to hold tailings, so we continued to build up the berms” to contain the salty water, Rhind said.

Water initially gushed in at 2,000 cubic metres (two million litres) per hour.

Geologists know the aquifer under cell 2A originates in Saskatchewan, where fresh water enters the ground and becomes salty as it moves through the salt-rich layer of porous rock. The aquifer eventually seeps into the Athabasca River.

Shell estimates a five-metre-long crack that snakes up through the limestone is the source of the problem.

The firm is currently filling in a small portion of the pond above the leak, dumping sand over a layer of rip-rap (rubble to allow drainage from the leak to continue) to create a base for a drill rig.

“We are going to drill holes from this pad that we are creating, which will allow us to take core samples, and also be a way to inject sealant.”

Shell considered using a floating drilling barge, but if the hydrogen sulphide gas returned it would be a safety hazard for the crew.

“The pad is the safest approach,” he said.

Shell brought in its experts from around the world, people with experience in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and scientists from Houston and Amsterdam to study the problem.

Normal cement injection won’t work because of the incoming water flow, so Shell intends to inject a hot asphalt material to create a temporary seal. Then grouting cement will be pumped down to make the seal permanent.

Drilling should be completed by January, and Rhind figures it will take another 10 months to complete the sealing process.

Dealing with the remaining water is a simpler problem. Shell can’t use the salty water in its processes, but another oil firm may be able to pipe it to its facility.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to slowly add dry sand from the tailings handling process.

“Dry sand would slowly absorb the water. There would be about 30 per cent water in the sand, and other tailings areas receive wetter sand,” Rhind said.

Reclamation could then proceed as normal, “and as our aboriginal neighbours tell us, the real architects of the land, the beaver, will come in and finish off the landscape,” he adds.

The Energy Resources Conservation Board is closely following the Shell project, spokesman Bob Curran said.

“We believe what Shell is doing is appropriate,” he said.

He could not comment on any moves to ensure all firms do full seismic work at future mine sites to detect any weakness in the limestone cap rock which overlies the deep aquifer.

But Rhind says Shell is sharing all its seismic data with its competitors, Suncor, Syncrude, Canadian Natural and Esso.

“They are happy. Everybody in the industry will learn what we have learned,” he said.

“And from this point forward, we are doing the extra seismic at Muskeg and our new Jackpine Mine so we know what we are dealing with under the oilsands.”

dcooper@edmontonjournal.com

The Muskeg River Mine Leak

- In October 2010, a five-metre crack developed in a weak area of the 150-metre thick limestone which caps a salty aquifer.

- After mining was completed, but before tailings were added to cell 2A, up to 2,000 cubic metres per hour of salty water flowed in through this crack.

- Containment walls were heightened as the cell filled, but the pressure of the new pond slowed the inflow to just 200 cubic metres per hour.

- Shell is now building a pad in the pond to support a rig which will drill three holes around and through the fracture to understand the geology.

- In January, Shell will begin pumping hot asphalt down these holes to create a temporary seal. Then grouting cement will be pumped in to make the seal permanent by the end of 2012.

- Dry sand will then be added to soak up the salty water, and normal land reclamation will proceed.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Shell Won’t Shed Refineries, CEO Says

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011

By RYAN DEZEMBER

Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s chief executive says he has no plans to follow in the footsteps of rivals and shed refineries.

“We will remain an integrated oil company,” Peter Voser, head of the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, said Wednesday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Several so-called integrated oil companies, which explore for oil and refine crude, have lately concluded they would be better off split into separate parts.

ConocoPhillips said in July that it is dividing itself into two publicly traded companies, one for each side of the business. That follows a similar move Marathon Oil Corp. made this summer when it created publicly traded Marathon Petroleum Corp. to run its refineries. Meanwhile, Murphy Oil Corp. has sold all of its refineries except for one in Wales, which it is actively shopping.

But Mr. Voser said Shell values its refineries as part of its overall business. Owning refineries, he said, should give the company an advantage in developing its Canadian oil sands, the thick crude that requires intense refining, and in its efforts to turn North America’s abundant natural gas into fuel for vehicles.

If a company is only involved in one part of the oil-and-gas business, he said, “you have the risk that others will optimize the value chain.”

Mr. Voser said that having refining capabilities also gives Shell an advantage when courting government-owned oil companies, which typically have access to vast reserves but little capability to get oil and gas out of the ground or to turn them into marketable products.

“For us to be the right partner to national oil companies, we have to be integrated,” he said.

Separately, when asked Wednesday about market rumors that Shell was targeting gas producer Range Resources Corp. for an acquisition, Mr. Voser said “We don’t comment on rumor, but we’ve got plenty on our table to deliver.”

Range’s operations are increasingly focused on the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York, a deeply buried rock formation that has quickly become one of the most prolific natural-gas fields in the world.

Mr. Voser said Shell has some 40 trillion cubic feet of so-called unconventional natural-gas reserves, such as gas from shale, in the U.S. and Canada, some of it acquired when the company bought East Resources last year for $4.7 billion. Shell intends to focus on developing those reserves with an eye toward projects that turn natural gas into a liquid transportation fuel, exporting liquefied natural gas and chemical manufacturing, he said.

A spokesman for Range Resources didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Shell’s U.S.-traded class A shares closed Wednesday down about 4% at $63.15. Shares of Range Resources closed up nearly 5% at $67.96 in New York Stock Exchange trading.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell On Track To Deliver Growth Targets For 50%-80% Cashflow By 2012

SEPTEMBER 9, 2011

LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA.LN), Friday confirmed that it has made solid progress in starting up three world-class oil & gas projects in 2011, which at peak will add some 400,000 barrels oil equivalent, and is on track to deliver its strategic targets for 50-80% growth in cash flow from operations from 2009 to 2012.

MAIN FACTS:

-Shell’s three-year strategic plan, outlined in 2010, is building the foundations for profitable growth for shareholders in the future.

-The company is improving near-term competitive performance, and delivering a new wave of production growth.

-Shell’s decision to maintain investment in new projects in the 2009 downturn is driving growth in the company.

-In Canada oil sands, the company has progressed with ramping-up of the expansion project at its Scotford Upgrader, and ASOP-1 recently reached its full production level of 100,000 barrels per day.

-In Qatar, the Qatargas 4 LNG project reached production plateau earlier this year. Ramp up of Train 1 of the Pearl GTL project continues to make good progress, with Train 2 on track for start-up before year- end, as planned.

-These three projects, representing some $30 billion of investment, underpin our targets for financial and production growth to 2012.

-The company is on track to deliver strategic targets for 50-80% growth in cash flow from operations from 2009 to 2012, driven by cost savings, operating performance, and an 11% increase in oil & gas production from one of the most substantial portfolios of new oil & gas projects in the industry Friday.

-Building on this growth, the company has launched 14 further Upstream projects so far in 2010-11, which have a expected peak production of some 400,000 barrels oil equivalent per day for Shell in the medium term, and underpinning the company’s longer-term growth potential.

-In Downstream, as the company completes a major phase of asset sales, it is consolidating this reshaped portfolio, focusing on operating performance, and investing in selective growth, for example recently forming the Ra??zen biofuels and marketing joint venture in Brazil.

-The scale and integration of projects such as Pearl GTL, Ra??zen biofuels and Prelude floating LNG are a solid platform to create long term value for shareholders.

-Shares at 1315 GMT down 10 pence, or 0.5%, at GBP20.49, valuing the company at GBP74.19 billion.

-By Razak Musah Baba, Dow Jones Newswires; 44-20-7842-9275; razak.baba@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Mining the Canadian tar sands: CCS-Project Quest; Pollution of Athabasca River; Concerns of the Canadian Aboriginals

From pages 20 & 21 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

CCS-project Quest

Shell’s Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP, Shell share 60%) is planning a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, called Quest, near to its Scotford Upgrader. The total cost of the project is projected to be USD 1.35 billion. The province of Alberta (USD 745 million) and the government of Canada (USD 120 million) are willing to pay most of the costs. The plant is planned to be commissioned at the end of 2015.

The CO2 will be permanently put under the ground during an estimated 25 years at a depth of over 2,000 meters, in a saline formation, with a maximum of 1.2 millions tonnes of CO2 each year. In a recent report quantifying the GHG reduction benefits from the CCS-project, the facilities were assumed to operate with 90% availability, capturing 1.08 million tonnes of CO2 annually. The full lifecycle emissions of the CCS-project itself were estimated to be between 0.16 to 0.24 million tonnes of CO2, around 20% of the annual capture. Conclusively, the project is estimated to reduce 0.84 to 0.92 million tonnes of CO2 annually.109 AOSP emitted 3.7 million tonnes of CO2-equivalents in 2009110, while its production stood at 78,000 barrels per day. Considering an already planned 440,000 barrels per day tonnes of production by AOSP and in- situ by Shell before 2020, the CCS-project will only partly compensate for the increasing emissions due to deriving fuel from oil sands compared to fuels derived from conventional oil.

Pollution of Athabasca river

A study by the University of Alberta, released July 2010, indicates that the oil sands industry could be the source of substantially increasing pollution to the Athabasca river and its tributaries via air and water pathways. In the period February – June 2008, samples were taken at about a hundred sites. The oil sands industry was found to release 13 elements considered priority pollutants (PPE) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act. Canada’s or Alberta’s guidelines for the protection of aquatic life were exceeded for seven PPE (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc) in melted snow and/or water collected near or downstream of development. According to the authors, their findings confirm the serious defects of the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP), which has not detected such patterns in the Athabasca river watershed. Based in part on results from RAMP, the industry, government and related agencies claim that human health and the environment are not at risk from oil sands development and that sources of elements and polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) in the Athabasca river and its tributaries are natural.

Concerns of the Canadian Aboriginals

First Nations is a term of ethnicity that refers to the Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis. In northern Alberta, Aboriginal communities rely on the land, water and wildlife for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, harvesting, navigation and ceremonial, recreational and domestic uses such as bathing, cooking and drinking. The communities are increasingly concerned about the negative impacts of the oil sands developments: − Communities, especially those living downstream, have expressed interest in effective and strong watershed protection. In 2009, seven communities testified that they had significant concerns about deteriorating water quality or river flows in the Athabasca watershed. For example, the Mikisew Cree First Nation has experienced an increased incidence of cancers found in the population of Fort Chipewyan, located directly downstream from the most intensive oil sands development. They fear that this may be due to water pollution from oil sands development.

− The caribou is an important species to many Aboriginal groups, for cultural and spiritual reasons. In 2008, Canada’s Environment Ministry released a report showing that due to cumulative development activities, all caribou herds in northeastern Alberta are now considered non-self-sustaining. The east side of the Athabasca River caribou herd, whose range includes much of the current in situ oil sands development in Alberta, has declined 71% since 1996.

Currently, oil sands mining operations are licensed to divert 604 million cubic metres of water annually from the Athabasca River Basin, which is equivalent to the needs of a city of three million people. As production increases, oil sands companies have the ability to withdraw the licensed amount. Although water use is often presented as a percentage of average annual flows, the amount of water used during low flow periods is of most concern, especially since the water is not returned to the river system after use as it would be with municipal uses. In July 2010, the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations said the proposed Government of Alberta framework to manage water withdrawals would not protect the interests of these communities during low flow periods. First Nations are concerned that water withdrawals from the Athabasca River system reduces river flows, threatening fish populations during low flow periods, and the health of the Peace-Athabasca Delta.

Further extracts from the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Mining the Canadian tar sands

From pages 19 & 20 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

Shell’s largest unconventional oil resource

Due to “easy” oil getting scarce, oil companies are investing in unconventional oil resources. In general, unconventional oil production has greater environmental impacts than conventional oil production. The Canadian oil sands (often called tar sands) are Shell’s largest unconventional oil reserve. As of 31 December 2010, Canadian oil sands amounted to 26% of Shell’s proven oil reserves. Oil reserves refer to the oil production Shell has secured to exploit in the future.

The oil sands are found in the Canadian province of Alberta. In December 2010, the government of Alberta listed 47 oil sands projects that are planned, underway, or recently completed. The total investment costs for these projects amounted to USD 85 billion.

Typical mining

The extraction of oil from tar sands has many features that are typical to industrial mining: dig up the earth; use lots of energy and water; sell the product; create a huge lake with toxic waste. At Shell’s main oil sands operations, an oily tar mixed with sand, clay and water is dug up in open- pit mines. Enormous trucks deliver these goods to a place where warm water is added to separate sand from the bitumen. After this process, the bitumen goes to an upgrader. In this upgrader (that usually runs on natural gas) the large heavy hydrocarbon molecules are cracked into lighter molecules. The synthetic crude oil is then sold to refineries to make gasoline; the remainder of the process is dumped in a tailings lake.

Some oil sands in Alberta are buried too deep below the surface for open-pit mining. In these cases, the oil will be recovered by in-situ techniques. Mostly steam needs to be injected into the deposit (thermal method), causing hot bitumen to migrate towards producing wells.

Shell’s presence

Shell’s Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP, Shell share 60%) presently comprises two open-pit mines (the Muskeg River mine and the Jackpine mine) and the Scotford Upgrader. The present capacity was developed for a total cost of USD 19 billion. The total resource base is estimated at 3.4 billion barrels, so at the same pace this project could last for almost 40 years. AOSP has many more mining leases along the Athabasca river that may be utilised for oil production in the future.

By mid 2011, oil production is expected to be 255,000 barrels per day.98 Due to efficiency and de-bottlenecking operations the AOSP-production is assumed to increase by another 85,000 barrels to 340,000 barrels a day within the coming 7-10 years.

Shell has several 100% positions in in-situ mining. Production in 2010 is estimated at 18,000 barrels a day, from its Peace River and Cold Lake Orion assets. Shell is proposing to increase thermal bitumen production from its Peace River leases by 80,000 barrels of bitumen per day, through the Carmon Creek project. Investments of USD 3.5 billion are proposed for this project during the period 2011 – 2016. Shell estimates that the project has a 1.5 billion barrels resources potential. The company is also assessing its Grosmont and Woodenhouse in-situ assets including vast landholdings in west Athabasca.

Greenhouse gas emissions of fuels from oil sands

In a study at the request of the European Commission, released February 2011, typical tar sand well-to-wheel greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were found to be most likely 23% worse than GHG emissions of typical conventional oil sources. For this study, many earlier studies on this subject were reviewed. Shell usually states that fuels derived from oil sands mining have 5 to 15% higher well-to-wheel (GHG) emissions, compared to fuels derived from conventional oil and dependant on crude type & source.

It should be noted that the recent study at the request of the European Commission refers to well-to-wheel GHG emissions. Well-to-wheel emissions include the emissions produced during crude oil extraction, processing, distribution, and combustion in an engine. For all sources of crude oil, 70 to 80 percent of GHG emissions occur at the combustion phase. Combustion emissions do not vary for a given fuel among sources of crude oil. Oil companies can influence well-to-tank emissions only, which account for 20 to 30 percent of total life-cycle GHG emissions.

In the study at the request of the European Commission, the most likely well-to-tank emissions from tar sands fuel were put at 33.9 grams of CO2 per megajoule. These are the emissions that can be influenced by Shell. The most likely well-to-tank emissions for conventional oil were put at 13.7 grams of CO2 per megajoule. So, the well-to-tank emissions of oil sands are almost 2.5 times higher than the emissions for average fuel used in the European Union.

A further extract from this section of the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Shell Gets $876 Million for Canadian Carbon Capture Project

By Ehren Goossens and Jeremy van Loon – Jun 24, 2011 9:46 PM GMT+0100

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) will receive C$865 million ($876 million) from the governments of Alberta and Canada to fund a carbon capture and storage project.

Shell and its partners will receive the money over 15 years, based on meeting certain performance targets, according to a statement today on the Government of Alberta’s website. The province of Alberta will contribute C$745 million and Canada will provide the remainder.

Shell’s Quest project would be the first oil-sands operation to capture the greenhouse gas for an upgrading plant, Shell said. Development of Canada’s bitumen reserves has contributed most of the nation’s increase in carbon emissions since 1990 when output was supposed to begin to decline under the Kyoto Protocol.

“This is the second of four grants finalized by the Alberta government for CCS, so the committed funds are starting to flow to developers,”said Cheryl Wilson, carbon capture and storage analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Washington.

“Quest is Shell’s main carbon capture project after its Barendrecht project near Rotterdam was canceled in November,” Wilson said. The Canadian authorities pledged their support for the project in October 2009.

Alberta has committed C$2 billion to fund four carbon capture and storage projects including Quest, which it says will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 million tons a year starting in 2015.

Slowing Carbon Emissions

Alberta, home to Canada’s oil and gas industry, is counting on carbon capture and storage technology to help slow its output of the gas amid criticism from environmental groups and politicians in the U.S. and the European Union. Greenpeace has said the technology is too expensive to rely on for reducing carbon output on the scale needed to tackle climate change.

Shell and its competitors in the oil and gas industry are not only counting on the technology to allow them to continue exploiting fossil fuel reserves, they also expect governments to help pay for development of carbon capture and storage.

“CCS is recognized as one of the most promising technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels,” said John Abbott, Shell’s executive vice president of Heavy Oil in today’s statement. “Government support in this important demonstration phase is essential.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Jeremy van Loon in Calgary at jvanloon@bloomberg.net Ehren Goossens in New York at egoossens1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Wade at wwade4@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Alleged destruction of agricultural lands with tar sands waste in northern Alberta by Shell and others

Not all tar sands waste ends up in tailings ponds. As described in the attached paper – in Alberta it is spread on arable land. This practise is actually encouraged by the Alberta Government agencies and regulations.

Click to continue reading “Alleged destruction of agricultural lands with tar sands waste in northern Alberta by Shell and others”

Shell primitive gas flaring in Nigeria

From pages 10, 11 & 12 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

The gas flares of Nigeria

Below the surface, crude oil is often found mixed with natural gas. The natural gas must be separated from the oil during extraction. Technically the gas can easily be captured and utilized. In Nigeria, however, the associated gas is primitively flared in the open air. Rushing for oil exports in the 1960s and 1970s, Shell and the Nigerian government only built oil pipelines. They didn’t care about infrastructure to utilize the valuable natural gas: just burn it. There are currently approximately 100 continuously burning gas flares in the Niger Delta and just offshore, some of which have been burning since the early 1960s.

Based on satellite data, the World Bank estimates that the amount of gas flared by Nigeria has reduced from 21.3 billion m3 in 2005 to 15.2 billion m3 in 2009, a decrease by 29%. In 2010, Nigeria represented 11% of global gas flares. Only one country flared more gas than Nigeria: Russia. In 2009, Russia flared about three times more gas than Nigeria. However, it produced about 4.5 times more oil than Nigeria. Per litre of oil produced, Nigeria exceeded Russia in flaring gas.

Mainly due to the flaring and venting of gas, the greenhouse gas emissions of crude oil production in Nigeria are among the world’s highest. A recent study, at the request of the European Commission, refers to two different studies that have calculated the emissions of Nigerian oil production. The first study puts the oil production emissions at 16.8 grams of CO2 per megajoule, the second one is quoted as putting the emissions at 21.1 grams. The study at the request of the European Commission, puts the most likely average emissions of conventional oil production for the European market at 4.8 grams of CO2 per megajoule. So, oil production in Nigeria is considered to cause 3.5 to 4.4 times more greenhouse gases than average conventional oil production.

Greenhouse gases are not the only reported problems with respect to gas flares:

− The United Nations Development Programme has declared that gas flares destroy natural resources and local livelihoods, alienate people from their land, and “adversely affect human development conditions”.

− In November 2005, a federal high court in Benin ordered Shell to stop gas flaring near the village of Iwherekan, after the community had applied for an order enforcing or securing the enforcement of their fundamental right to life and dignity of human person. The judge ruled that gas flaring is a “gross violation” of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to life and dignity, which include the right to a “clean poison-free, pollution-free healthy environment”.

Shell appealed and the case is still pending.

− The Nigerian Gas Association (NGA) has estimated that Nigeria has lost about USD 72 billion in revenues (about USD 2.5 billion annually) in the period 1970-2006 period due to not selling, but burning the gas.

− In a report published in 2005, the Climate Justice Programme and Environmental Rights Action/ Friends of the Earth Nigeria have calculated the yearly health impacts from gas flares in one of the Niger Delta states: Bayelsa. The particulate matter and benzene emissions from gas flaring at the 17 onshore flowstations in Bayelsa state would likely cause, each year, at least: 49 premature deaths, 4,960 respiratory illnesses among children, 120,000 asthma attacks and 8 additional cases of cancer. SPDC declares, however, that there is no evidence to support the argument that flaring damages the health of local communities.

− The federal government of Nigeria states that heat stress and acid rain from gas flaring continue to degrade the ecosystem.

− Local communities have reported numerous other impacts of the gas flares, such as: the eyes may turn red; there is never any darkness; corrugated roofs corrode more quickly; there is constant noise from the gas flares; the walls of houses crack due to ground vibrations caused by the gas flares.

Shell’s Nigerian flares: mystifying messages

Estimating from what is stated in Shell’s Sustainability report 2010, SPDC (government share 55%, Shell share 30%) must have released about 7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (measured in CO2 equivalents) through gas flaring during the year 2010. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of about 3 million cars driven on roads in Europe.

Shell states that in the period 2002-2010 SPDC’s flaring has decreased by about 50%.43 The company mentions two reasons for this:

− Since 2000, SPDC has spent over USD 3 billion on installing associated gas gathering infrastructure at 32 flowstations. These projects reduced continuous flaring by more than 30%. This 30% result was already achieved in 2005. There has been little progress from 2006 onwards.

− The rest of the decrease is a result of reduced production since 2006 in Nigeria and, to a lesser extent, the installation of gas gathering equipment in 2010.

In 2007, SPDC promised “to shut down production from any fields where there is no prospect of a solution for gathering the associated gas by 2009”. In May 2009, SPDC stated that it would need to invest another USD 3 billion to gather some 85% of the total associated gas produced in its operations. Wikileaks revealed a statement in October 2009 by the Shell Executive Vice President (EVP) for Shell Companies in Africa, Ms. Ann Pickard. She stated that the SPDC-flares could be out by 2011. SPDC would have to spend USD 4 billion to do this, but the Nigerian government would also have to fund its part and that was a risk. Shell would shut in oil production in fields where it is uneconomic to end gas flaring. In 2011, Shell stated that it still needed funding from partners to execute projects that would bring flaring down by 90%. In a letter dated 31 December 2008, the government directed SPDC and other oil companies to continue with production (and therefore flaring) until instructed otherwise. During this process of oil extraction the oil fields will be running out of oil, making investments in gas gathering infrastructure less economically attractive. Thus, gas might be flared to the bitter end of oil operations.

In May 2010, SPDC announced that it was working on a series of projects totalling investments of more than USD 2 billion. The Managing Director of SPDC, Mutiu Sunmonu, said: “SPDC is pleased to be able to restart work on delayed projects and begin new ones to further reduce gas flaring in our operations to the lowest practical volume. Security and funding conditions permitting, we have a real chance to progress our flaring reduction plans through these key projects.” SPDC did not provide for a time-line as to when the facilities would be fully functioning, and how much associated gas would be gathered. By mid January 2011, three additional associated gas gathering sites had been completed.

As of this moment, it is not clear how the gas flare picture of SPDC will evolve in the near future. In 2010, Shell’s flaring rose by 32% compared to 2009. This was mainly due to increased oil production in Nigeria and the start of its oil production at the Majnoon field in Iraq.54 In 2010, Shells oil production in Nigeria rose to 302,000 barrels of oil per day, up from 231,000 barrels of oil per day in 2009.

Whenever the security situation allows SPDC to produce more oil, its gas flaring might increase again. On the other hand, the series of projects SPDC is working on at present might decrease gas flaring to some extent.

Over the years, SPDC has been spreading mystifying messages with regard to its flaring operations. The company has never shown a breakdown of flowstations where gas is flared. It has also never publicised a detailed plan to achieve a flare-out status. Like with oil spills, the company has never made a serious effort to get the facts clear with regard to the damages communities in the Niger Delta have suffered and still suffer.

Meanwhile, the Nigerian government may be busy with some deadlines to end gas flares, as it has been since the 1980s. Experience shows that these efforts can’t be taken too seriously.

Further extracts from this section of the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Facing Up to End of ‘Easy Oil’

May 24, 2011

By BEN CASSELMAN

WAFRA, Kuwait—The Arabian Peninsula has fueled the global economy with oil for five decades. How long it can continue to do so hinges on projects like one unfolding here in the desert sands along the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border.

Saudi Arabia became the world’s top oil producer by tapping its vast reserves of easy-to-drill, high-quality light oil. But as demand for energy grows and fields of “easy oil” around the world start to dry up, the Saudis are turning to a much tougher source: the billions of barrels of heavy oil trapped beneath the desert.

Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.

That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world’s thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.

“The easy oil is coming to an end,” says Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for the Scottish energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The major oil fields in the Gulf region, he says, have pumped more than half their oil—the point at which production traditionally begins to decline.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said earlier this month that world-wide oil consumption would hit a record 88 million barrels a day this year. Turmoil in Libya, combined with slowing production growth in Western countries, will keep supplies tight, boosting prices, the federal agency said. It projects oil prices will average $103 a barrel this year, up 30% from last year, and will be even higher next year.

No one suggests that the Gulf nations are running out of oil. Heavy oil, although difficult to pump, is abundant. The Middle East alone is believed to hold some 78 billion barrels of heavy oil that is currently recoverable, more than three-and-a-half times the U.S.’s total reserves.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are some three trillion barrels of heavy oil in the world, about 100 years of global consumption at current levels. The catch: Only a fraction of it—about 400 billion barrels—can be recovered using existing technology. New techniques like the ones being tried in Wafra could unlock more.

“When people talk about how we’re ‘running out of oil,’ they’re not counting the heavy oil,” says Amy Myers Jaffe, who runs the Energy Forum at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. “There’s a huge amount of resource there…It’s just a question of developing the technology.”

To get to Wafra’s thick oil, workers are injecting steam into the ground to heat the oil and make it less viscous, allowing it to flow to the surface. The technique is tricky, expensive and unproven in the type of rock that holds Wafra’s oil.

For their half of the project, the Saudis have enlisted the help of Chevron Corp., which has decades of experience extracting heavy oil from fields in California and Thailand. It is a rare chance for a Western oil company to get a piece of the world’s biggest oil reserves.

But it is also a gamble. The project, much more complex that what Chevron has done before, will cost billions of dollars and take decades to complete. And it will be Chevron, not the Saudis, putting up the capital needed to make the project work—and taking the risk that it won’t.

The Wafra oil field lies 30 miles inland from the Persian Gulf, along a highway lined with power cables, pipelines and the occasional herd of camels making their way across the desert moonscape. Inside the oil field’s guarded gates, hundreds of dun-colored pumps rock slowly against a forest of drilling rigs, radio towers and utility poles. Pipelines snake across the sand, gathering crude from more than a thousand wells. About 45% of Wafra’s crude makes its way to the U.S.

That oil is the easy-to-pump stuff. The bigger prize: Wafra’s 25 billion barrels of heavy oil.

Chevron is conducting what amounts to a four-year, $340 million test in a small corner of Wafra. Oil, like molasses, thins when heated. Large silver pipes carry 600-degree-Fahrenheit steam underground, flooding the oil-rich rock. Nearby, a grid of pumps pulls up the oil.

So far, the results have been encouraging. As of November, the wells were producing 1,500 barrels per day, seven times what they produced before steam injection began in 2009.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are paying close attention to the results. Princes, emirs, ministers and ambassadors have visited the project’s incongruously ornate field office, which boasts marble floors. “Everyone is watching our project,” says Ahmed Al-Omer, president of Chevron’s Saudi Arabian division.

Global oil consumption, buoyed by skyrocketing demand in China and India, jumped by 2.3 million barrels a day last year, a 2.8% increase, according to U.S. government figures, the second biggest increase in 30 years. Oil production in the Western world, meanwhile, is barely growing. That means the world is increasingly dependent on production from countries in the OPEC cartel, and particularly Saudi Arabia, its dominant member.

“All the countries in the Middle East are going to have to start grappling with these [heavy-oil] reserves,” says Andrew Gould, chairman and chief executive of oil-field services giant Schlumberger Ltd., which has worked on several heavy-oil projects in the region. “They’ve never had to think about it before.”

Already, some are trying to tap their heavy-oil reserves. Bahrain has said it hopes to double or triple production from its Awali oil field by targeting heavy oil there with the help of California-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. Abu Dhabi in 2009 launched a pilot project with Connecticut-based Praxair Inc. to boost heavy-oil production in its Zakum field.

Oman has been especially ambitious with its heavy-oil projects as it looks to offset a steep decline in its light-oil production. In 2007, Occidental began a steam-injection project in the country’s Mukhaizna field; production in the field has increased 15-fold since the company took it over in 2005. Last year, Oman’s state oil company teamed up with Royal Dutch Shell PLC and other companies to launch a $2 billion project to increase production from its Marmul field using another, similar technique.

The Wafra project dwarfs others in the region. If the Saudis and Kuwaitis decide to expand steam injection to the full field, it would be twice the size of the world’s biggest currently operating steam project, in Indonesia. They would need to drill 19,000 wells and hire some 3,000 workers. Ultimately, they hope to recover six billion barrels of oil.

“It’s a massive, multibillion dollar project that’s spread over 25 to 30 years of investment and drilling,” says Chevron Vice Chairman George Kirkland.

Chevron won’t disclose the projected total cost of the project, but Kuwait has previously estimated it will cost $10 billion over 10 years.

For Western oil companies, such projects are considered worth the risks because they are an opportunity to gain a foothold in a region where they have had little access in recent decades.

In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, Western oil companies, including predecessors of Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and most of the other big international producers, helped discover many of the world’s greatest oil fields: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait and Rumaila in Iraq.

Those fields were so easily tapped, however, that by the 1970s most governments in the region had decided they no longer needed the help of Western companies and nationalized their oil fields. Big Oil found itself virtually shut out of the region.

As a result, Western companies were left pursuing tougher, less profitable projects: exploring in deep water, mining the Canadian oil sands and coaxing the last drops out of aging fields around the world.

Those projects gave companies expertise they now hope will give them a chance to move back into the Middle East.

But the projects are long and costly, and governments in the region drive a hard bargain, forcing companies to shoulder the costs of the project while governments take a big portion of the profits if they work.

Many experts believe that companies are mostly taking on these early pilot projects to get an inside track on bigger, more profitable projects down the road—a tactic they have used before in places like Russia and Iraq, with mixed results.

Using steam to extract oil isn’t a new idea. Chevron has been using the method to recover heavy oil at its Kern River field in Bakersfield, Calif., since the 1960s. That field yielded less than 10% of its oil using traditional methods. Using steam injection, Chevron is now on its way to pumping as much as 80% of the crude.

The Wafra project, however, is far more of a challenge than traditional steam projects. As in most of the Middle East, the oil at Wafra is trapped in a thick layer of limestone that also contains minerals that can build up inside pipes and corrode equipment.

An even bigger challenge is getting the two crucial elements for generating steam: water and a source of energy to boil it. Most successful steam projects are in places with easy access to relatively pure water and a cheap fuel source, usually natural gas. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have little of either.

With no fresh-water sources in the Arabian desert, Chevron has been forced to use salt water found in the same underground reservoirs as the oil. That water is full of contaminants that must be removed before it can be boiled and injected into the ground.

Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.

Some experts are shaking their heads.

“They’re in trouble,” says Robert Toronyi, a retired Chevron engineer who now serves as chief operating officer for Quantum Reservoir Impact, a Houston-based consulting firm. He says the project is so challenging that it will be hard for Chevron to turn much of a profit.

Chevron says the project will be profitable as long as oil prices stay above $60 or $70 per barrel, well below Monday’s level of $97.70.

Bill Higgs, Chevron’s top operations manager in Saudi Arabia, likens the project to a “chemistry experiment” and says the company is still figuring out whether it is worth the massive investment that would be required to take the project from the pilot stage into full-scale development. Still, the project has an advantage over deep-water exploration.

“You know where the oil is,” Mr. Higgs says. “There’s no doubt about that. So the question is: How do I economically produce it?”

Source Article