Environmental Protection at an Affordable Cost

Bruce R. Peachey, P.Eng., MCIC

What is “Environmental Protection”

◊ Achieving a “sustainable” balance• Environment, Economics and Security

◊ Environment – Don’t destroy our own home

◊ Economics - Support human desire to improve themselves

◊ Security – Ensure the same for future generations

What is an “Affordable Cost”

◊ No limit to avoid a “terminal” condition

◊ True costs of environmental change are hard to quantify. Less environmental change will likely have less cost

◊ Positive economics to ensure value added

◊ Buy down risk where impacts are uncertain

Indicators

◊ Social - Conspicuous Consumption• “Perrier Water” at $3/L vs. $.03/L from tap

◊ Climate – Energy Use• Global Energy output = 550 EJ (1996)• Water vapour impacts vs. “Measurable GHG’s”

◊ Toxicity – Cost• “High Tech” = High Cost = High Emissions Somewhere

◊ Economic – Positive Economics• Best “environmental” projects make $• Best “economic” projects minimize environmental impacts

Social Indicator = Conspicuous Consumption

◊ Easiest way to achieve “Environmental Protection at an Affordable Cost” is to Reduce Conspicuous Consumption

• “Perrier Water” at $3/l (mostly cost to transport glass and water) vs. >$0.03/l from the tap

• Only eating “perfect tomatoes”• New vs. Used (Social life vs. Design Life)• Buy vs. Rent or Lease (Status symbol vs. utility)

◊ Social Issues require education and new role models.

Climate Indicator = Energy Use

◊ “Measured” Global Energy Output= 550 EJ (‘96)• Energy to heat atmosphere 1 degree C = 450 EJ

◊ Adding energy makes things more energetic!

◊ Water vapour impacts vs. “Measurable GHG’s”• “Weather” driven by humidity more than temperature

» Rainfall on U.S. Eastern Seaboard has a 7 day cycle

» Humidity measurement key to weather prediction (1917)

» Need predict humidity changes to predict weather (future)

• “Heat Pipe Effect” moves energy to Arctic air masses» Temperature increase greater at higher latitudes

» Rapid increase in glacier melting

Toxicity Indicator = Cost

◊ Why High Tech materials are expensive:• Large resource input (energy, people)• High purity requires high processing cost

» “Pure water” vs. “Clean Water”

• Scarce components = large volumes of reject• Specialized processing (acids, heavy metals, solvents)• All lead to more emissions of toxic or potentially toxic

materials

◊ High cost means high emissions somewhere

Economic Indicator = Positive Economics

◊ Economics are a reality• Environmentalists and engineers need to get paid• “Ethical funds” and stocks have to show a return• Financial results are society’s “scorecard”

◊ Best “environmental” projects make $ for someone

◊ Best “economic”projects minimize environmental impacts

◊ “Affordable” = “Profitable”

◊ More profitable = Quicker and more widespread implementation

Priority #1 - Reduce

◊ Reduce Net Energy Use• Make complete use of energy generated• Don’t dump energy to atmosphere if someone can use it

◊ Simplicity of Design• Less hardware -->Less cost--> Less energy/emissions to

make

◊ Biochemical to Replace “Pots & Kettles”• Low energy routes to the same products

◊ Influence Public• Help them select products based on good life cycle

impacts?• Weed out false/misleading information.

Priority #2 - Reuse

◊ Close materials loops• Find uses for all concentrated streams• Use processes and site plants to generate “locally useful

byproducts”

◊ Design Products for Reuse• Standardize materials & packaging to allow refill• Design for secondary uses

◊ Stop calling things “waste” streams• By-products looking for a use.

Priority #3 - Recycle

◊ Don’t use non-recyclable materials• Avoid vinyl-chlorides• Avoid composite materials

◊ Develop small scale, local recycling processes to reduce transportation energy

• Community level composting & fibre recycling

◊ Plan Landfill Sites to Allow for Mining• Segregate metals, asphalt, biomass, other hydrocarbons

Picking “Robust Solutions”

◊ Best projects for Environmental Protection:• Don’t stimulate more conspicuous consumption• Net energy demand reductions on Life Cycle Basis• Don’t create other problems (toxics)• Positive economics to motivate use• Go in the right order:

› First Reduce› Second Reuse› Third Recycle

New Paradigms for Robust Projects

◊ Mostly from Energy and Petrochemicals Industries• Hydrocarbon Vent Remediation• Oilfield Water Management• Cogeneration• Use of Pure Byproduct Streams• Energy Recovery

THC Emissions by Industry Sector

Gas Production29%

Heavy Oil Production

23%Accidents and

Equipment Failures4%

Product Transmission

13%

Conventional Oil Production

25%

Other1%

Gas Processing5%

Total 1995 = 2276 kt

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

VOC Emissions by Industry Sector

Gas Production16%

Heavy Oil Production

7%Accidents and

Equipment Failures2%

Product Transmission

4%

Conventional Oil Production

66%

Other1%

Gas Processing4%

Total 1995 = 681 kt

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

CH4 Emissions by Industry Sector

Gas Production35%

Heavy Oil Production

29%

Accidents and Equipment Failures

5%

Product Transmission

16%

Conventional Oil Production

8%

Other1% Gas Processing

6%

Total 1995 = 1594 kt

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

Hydrocarbon Vents – Heavy Oil

Heavy Oil Venting WellTest Case - High Volume

Casing Vent - #1

Catalytic Heater

Tank Vent - #2

Tank at 65 - 85 deg C

Secondary Catalytic Heater(If Required)

Hydrocarbon Vents – Conventional Oil

Or

Hydrocarbon Vents – Natural Gas

Control Valves

Metering Pumps

Fuel

Destroy

VOC’s

Power

Water and Oil Production in Western Canada

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

An

nu

al P

rod

uct

ion

- M

illio

ns

of

bb

ls

Water Production

Oil Production

Oilfield Water Management DHOWS

Hydrocyclone(s)

Concentrate Pump (P2)

Emulsion Pump (P1)

Back Pressure Valve

Producing Zone(s)

Disposal Zone(s)

C-FER/NPEL

•Minimizes Energy Use•Reduces Brine Flow by Aquifers•Prolongs Well Life•Reduces Surface Facilities•Reduces Operating Costs•Reduces Surface Spills

Oilfield Water Management – Same Well Source/Injector/Recycle

Lake orRiver Source

Cap rockOil Leg

Water LegCap rock

Underlying Aquifer

DHOWS

Move toward“Ideal”

Pump

Cogeneration – Compressor Sites

Canadian Sales Pipeline Fuel Use* = 0.24 tcf/yr (4.4% of sales)Similar Volume for U.S. Portions of Pipelines

•#1 Only Requires Power Deregulation•#2 Adapt Geothermal Technology•Distributed generation – “free” fuel•TransCanada Power – 40 MW plants

#1#2

* Source NRCan Energy Outlook

Gas Transportation Energy Distribution

Ont32%

Man15%

Sask7%

Que10%

B.C.14%

Alberta22%

Ref: CAPP Pub #1999-0009

Cogeneration – Gas Plants

Gas Production Fuel Use* = 0.43 tcf/yr (7.8% of sales)H2S Converted to Sulphur* = 0.19 tcf/yr (exothermic)Compression, Dehydration, Liquids and Sulphur Removal

•#1 Potential of over 1,000 MW from major sour gas plants. (RTM/CAPP ‘91)•#2 Potential of 80 MW from fractionation plants. (RTM/CAPP ’91)•#3 Adapt Geothermal Technology

* Source CAPP 1996 Statistics

#1#2

SweeteningFractionation

#3

Cogeneration – Major Sites

•Initially only requires deregulation•Secondary opportunities for other sources.

•E.g. Steam vents in Cold Lake,•E.g. Thermomechanical Pulp Mills

PetrochemicalRefinery

Oil SandsHeavy Oil

PetrochemicalRefinery

Oil SandsHeavy Oil

Add Cogen

Total Planned in Alta/Sask Alone > 1,000 MW

Use of By-Product Streams – CO/CO2

e.g. Syncrude/Suncor 1996 = 12 Mt/yr

CO/CO2

• Potential Products• Ethanol (on-site fuel)• Acetone

Bioreactors Compression& Pipelines

Fischer-Tropsch

CH4

• Potential Uses• Oil Recovery• Other Users

• Potential Products• On-site Fuels• Diluent for Blending

CO2CO/CO2Biomass& Bugs

Use of By-Product Streams - Shingles

•Value of asphalt in landfill streams = $40/t•Cost to dump in landfill = $40-$100/t•Replace buying raw asphalt & gravel•Needs standards for use in Roads•Better filler for Potholes?

Estimated Size of Stream in Alberta = 120 t/d

Shingle Manufacture

Re-roofing

Landfills Roads/Highways

Remove Nails& Wood

Asphalt

Energy Recovery – Water Users

•Large users might be economic•High volume water users•Also require heat or power

Hydraulic Power Recovery

Municipal Pump Stations End-user Pressure Reduction

Power or heat generation

Energy Recovery – Gas Users

•Large users might be economic•High volume gas users•Also require power or cooling

•Utility Pressure Letdown Stations

Pneumatic Power Recovery

Compressor Stations End-user Pressure Reduction

Power or cooling

◊ Environmental ProtectionCan meet objectives of Environment, Economics and

Security of Supply

◊ Solutions possible with focused changes:Social Education & Motivation

Technical Economics & Regulation

Potential Opportunity with R&D

◊ Key to Affordable Solutions:What if…….Why not………..

Summary

Acknowledgments

◊ Clients - NRCan & PERD, Oil & Gas Producers

◊ Alliance Partners - C-FER Technologies Inc., KR Croasdale & Associates, R&D 2000, Scott-Can Industries, Colin Gosselin

◊ Contact Networks - CSChE, PTAC, ACR, CIM, SPE, CAPP, individual colleagues

◊ New Paradigm Affiliates - KeyTech Energy Inc., Blackline Oil Corp. & Avatar Systems Inc.

◊ Family and Friends

Contact Information

Advanced Technology Centre

9650-20 Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

Canada T6N 1G1

tel: 780.450.3613

fax: 780.462.7297

email: info@newparadigm.ab.ca

web: www.newparadigm.ab.ca