Crude oCO2compressor

A View of Oil Resources andthe Mitigation of CO2
Emissions

il pi

epli

ne
Productin well
Injection wellCo2
recovery plant

Oil reservoir
Thermal power
station

CO2

MASAKI IIJIMA* 1

Crude oil

TORU TAKASHINA* 2

organized an association known as ASPO (the Association
for the Study of Peak Oil), arranged data on various oilfields in different countries around the world, and has offered several predictions regarding the production of oil in
the future. Recently, the Oil and Gas Journal took up thisproblem last year, and discussion on it has been gaining
greater interest ever since.
In the US, the cost of natural gas has rapidly risen during these last two to three years. In some cases, its costhas become higher than the cost of LNG purchased in Japan. In short, the US has really become a country where
oil and natural gas are in short supply.
According to predictions by Dr. Campbell, the production of oil will peak around the year 2010 and then decrease,and the production of natural gas will also peak around2020. Figure 1 shows the amount of oil supply estimatedby Dr. C. J. Campbell et al. It indicates that the amount ofoil supply will decrease gradually from a peak in 2010.
Figure 2 shows the total of the amount of oil supply andthe oil-equivalent amount of natural gas. It indicates thatthe total amounts of oil and natural gas supply will decrease gradually from a peak around 2015.
Dr. Campbell et al cited the following points as grounds
for this decrease.
(1) Since the development of exploration technology, mostmajor oil fields in the world have already been discovered and the number of untapped oil fields yet to bediscovered in the future is small.
(2) Since 1981, the consumption of oil has exceeded theamount of oil discovered (oil reserves), i.e., discovered
oil is assumed to be consumed before it is drilled.

1. Introduction
While global warming is now attracting ever-greaterattention in Japan, the instability of energy supplies, particularly oil, and the sudden increase in the price of natural
gas in the US have become major concerns globally. This
study gives a brief overview of global warming problems,
energy problems closely related to global warming problems,particularly oil resources concerns, and the trends and measures being taken for both problems in the world. It
concludes with a summary of what must be done in Japan.

2. Energy problems now and in the future
In the US, interest in energy has become extremely highdue to major increases in the cost of gasoline and natural
gas recently in that country. In Japan, however, though
global warming problems are reported on by various mass
media, there is very limited if any coverage given to energy
problems. This difference in feeling between Japan andthe U.S. may be attributable to the fact that Japan has
always relied upon imports from foreign countries for almost all its energy resources such as oil and gas. The U.S.,
on the other hand, must now purchase greater supplies ofenergy resources from other countries as supplies that wereonce plentiful in the U.S. are now in short supply.
In recent years, the shortage of supply of oil and natural gas has been discussed in many aspects. It can be said
to have first begun with a pronouncement in a paper by
Dr. C.J. Campbell of Ireland stating that the production ofoil would soon peak after which it will decrease never torecover to present levels. In recent years, Dr. Campbell

4030: Natural gas liquid: Polar oil: Deep sea oil: Heavy oil: Conventional oil

Annual production(equivalent to Gb of oil)

Annual production(Giga barrels [Gb])

50

20
10
0
1930

1950

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

Fig. 1 Past and future estimated production of oil in the world(1): Non-conventional gas: Natural gas: Natural gas liquid: Polar oil: Deep sea oil

50
40: Heavy oil: Conventional oil

30
20
10
0

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

Fig. 2 Past and future estimated production of oil and natural gas
in the world (1)(Natural gas is equivalent to10TCF=1Gb)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)*1 Plant and Transportation Systems Engineering & Construction Center*2 Hiroshima Research & Development Center, Technical Headquarters

1

.Peak of oil fields discovered, 1973
.Intermediate year, 2000
.Production peak, 2000
.Volume of overall production up to 2050: 59Gb
.Time lag, 27 years.Volume of overall production up to 1999: 30Gb
8

30

3.0

7

25

2.5

20

2.0

15

1.5

10

1.0

5

0.5
1950

1970

1990

2010

2030

Volume produced (Gb)

Volume discovered (Gb)01930

Volume discovered (Gb)

3.5

35

0.0
2050

2.5
2.0

6
5

1.5

4
1.0

3
2

0.5

1
0
1950

1970

1990

2010

2030

Volume produced (Gb)

.Peak of discovery of oil fields, 1930
.Intermediate year, 1970
.Production peak, 1972
.Volume of overall production up to 2050: 190 Gb.Time lag, 42 years.Volume of overall production up to 1999: 165 Gb

0.0
2050

Fig. 3 Past and future estimated production of oil in the U.S.
excluding Alaska (2)Fig. 4 Past and future estimated production of oil in the North
Sea oil field (2)(3) Once the peak has been passed, the production of oil will
never recover the same level. A typical example of thissituation is shown in Fig. 33, which shows the pattern ofoil production in the U.S. mainland excluding Alaska.
(4) The production of oil in the North Sea oil field is currently at its peak. It will decrease markedly in the future
and, by 2010, will have decreased to 40% of present proFig. 4
duction levels (Fig.
4).
(5) The production of natural gas will also peak around2020.
Since the predictions of Dr. C. J. Campbell have been
established based on the analysis of data from 50 000 oilfields around the world, there is a great deal of credibility
attached to many of his predictions.
Considering the peak theory for the production of oil
and natural gas, it is thought that coal will become more
important in the future. Whereas, when considered fromthe perspective of global warming, more stringent and effective measures against CO2 are essential since coal mostproduces the greatest amount of CO2 per calorie amongst
all fossil fuels.

An important point about the above methods for reducing CO2 is that the recovery and storage of CO2 has been
attracting much attention recently. This interest in therecovery and storage of CO2 began in the year 2000, whenInternational Energy Agency (IEA) stated that under thepresent circumstances, it will be difficult to take suitably
effective measures against global warming unless measures
for CO2 are taken that rely upon the recovery and storageof CO2 in terms of the amount and cost of the measures.
European countries which is thinking of abolishing
nuclear power and the U.S., where new site selection is nolonger performed, consider that CO2 cannot be reduced
through the use of natural energy and energy-saving measures as measures against CO2. In addition, the US cannot
easily convert from oil to natural gas because the cost ofnatural gas is rising quickly in the U.S.
Since the Europe and U.S. are continental land masses,
there are numerous thick sedimentary layers distributed
underground and sufficient aquifers are present that canserve as underground storage places for CO2. In addition,it has been pointed out that the cost for CO2 recovery fromflue gas is far lower less than the use of new energy orcertain energy saving measures. Accordingly, during thesethree to four years, a good opportunity has swiftly arisen
for the adoption of recovery and storage of CO2 as a measure against CO 2. This is evidenced by the number of
papers presented at the CHGT-6 (Green House Gas Control Technology-6) conference held in Kyoto, in October
2002. The number of papers on the recovery and storageof CO2 amounted to 75% of all papers presented, and thenumber of papers on the underground storage of CO2 comprised 50%.
The reason why the CO2 recovery and storage have been
attracting such attention and have come to be promoted isthat major oil producers and OPEC understand that suchmeasures match their profits and have thus started to makeovertures to their respective government agencies. As an
example, oil companies excluding Exxon Mobile among the

3. Mitigation of CO2 Emissions
Consideration is given here to a number of measuresagainst CO2 as measures against global warming. These
include the following measures for reducing CO2:
conservation and economy of use,energy-saving, increase in efficiency,
conversion to energy with lower carbon content (oil, coal--> natural gas),
Convert from fossil fuel based energy to nuclear power,
expansion of utilization of natural energy,
recovery and disposal (storage) of CO2, andexpansion of CO2 absorbing sources such as forests.
It should be noted that hydrogen is not a primary sourceof energy but is a secondary energy source, like electricity,and that CO2 cannot be reduced merely through the use ofhydrogen.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)

2

Majors have established an organization called the CO2
Capture Project (CCP) which promotes research and development activities aimed at establishing storage technologies
and reducing costs. Exxon Mobil established another organization in cooperation with Toyota and GE utilizing thefunctions of Stanford University different from the CCP.
The CCP aims at recovering CO2 emitted from the stacks
of power generation plants etc. and injecting it into theground. When the point of injection is located in an oil
field, the recovery rate of oil can be increased, and when it
is located in coal seams, coal seam methane can be recovered. When such injection points are not located nearby,
the CO2 is disposed in an underground aquifer.
In November 2002, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) began to prepare a special report on therecovery and storage of CO2 aimed at qualifying the recovery and disposal of CO 2 as a measure against global
warming in 2005. The authors also participated in the
preparation of this special report. Since the representatives of the countries involved mostly come from major oilcompanies and OPEC in the private sector and exclude
government agencies and research organizations, it can beunderstood who promotes the recovery and storage of CO2.
When CO 2 is recovered as a measure against global
warming, the position from which CO2 is recovered must
be determined. It is very difficult to recover it from a moving vehicle such as a car, and to recover it from families
and offices where small amounts of CO2 are emitted since
the recovery cost per ton of CO2 is high. Accordingly, power
generation plants and large-scale plants need to be targeted for the recovery of CO2. Though accurate numericalvalues are not determined, the amount of CO2 discharged
from power generation plants and large-scale plants is said
to comprise approximately 60% of the total amount of CO2
discharged.
On the other hand, approximately 98 to 99% of the CO2
discharged into the atmosphere is discharged from thestacks of such plants in the form of flue gas produced by
the combustion of oil, gas, and coal. Considering the recovery of CO2 as a measure against global warming, CO2
must be recovered from these combustion flue gases.
The properties of combustion flue gases are generally
characterized by the following points:
Atmosphere
Concentration of CO2: 3 to 15 vol.%Inclusion of oxygen, SOx, NOx, and soot and dust
In the recovery of CO2, it becomes necessary to recovera large amount of CO2 at low cost.
The following methods for utilizing and storing CO2 as ameasure against global warming are now under examination.
(1) Methods for using CO2(a) Chemical use
Urea
MethanolDimethyl ether (DME)
Gas to Liquid (GTL)
Soda ash(b) Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) method(c) Coal seam methane recovery method(d) Biological use(2) CO2 storage method(a) Underground disposal
Aquifers
Waste oil fields, gas fields
Coal seams(b) Ocean disposal
Among these CO2 utilization and storage methods, it is
the EOR method that can store and effectively use a large
amount of CO2.
Figure 5 shows the concept of a method in which CO2 isrecovered from flue gases emitted from power generation
plants, which is then compressed and injected into an adjacent oil field to increase the recovery rate of oil and to
store the CO2 in the oil layers.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Cru

de o

CO2
compressor

il pi

epli

ne

Productin well
Injection well

Co22
CO
recovery plant

Oil reservoir
Thermal power
station

CO2

Crude oilFig. 5 Concept of system for recovering CO2 from power plant flue gas and storing CO2
in oil reservoir by using EOR

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)

3

The CO2 is brought into a miscible condition in which
it is freely mixed with oil under high pressure to remarkably lower the viscosity of the oil, increase the flowabilityof the oil in the oil layers, and to markedly increase therecovery rate of the oil. This method has been adopted
mainly in the Western portion of Texas in the U.S. to contribute to the production of oil. At present, however, CO2
is produced in a nearby gas field where only CO2 is produced and supplied to oil fields through pipelines.
Accordingly, CO 2 is not reduced by this method. However, as shown in Fig. 5, it is a method of killing two birds
with one stone to recover CO2 discharged into the atmosphere and inject it into an oil field that can be taken as ameasure against global warming and increase the recovery rate of oil.
In this method, however, since there are hardly any oil
fields near the sources where CO2 is discharged in advanced
countries such as Japan, U.S., and Europe, CO2 must betransported at low cost to the oil fields in order for thismethod to play an important role for a measure against
global warming.
Figure 6 shows an example of an experiment on the disposal of CO2 in coal seams and the recovery of methane.
Methane gas is adsorbed in the coal seams, and in recent
years, it is being recovered for utilization. It is, however,difficult to mine coal from deep coal seams. Instead, themethane gas adsorbed in the coal seams is attracting at-

San Juan Basinin South Western
district of U.S.

Sup
CO ply
o
2 f

CO

2P

ipe

lin

tention as an energy resource. Since coal adsorbs methane gas well, the methane gas cannot be sufficiently
recovered from the coal.
When CO2 is injected into the coal seams, methane gas
is expelled since CO2 tends to be adsorbed more into coalthan methane gas. As a result, CO2 can be disposed in thecoal seams and the recovery of methane can be improved.
Coal seams are more widely distributed than oil fields, andconsidered to be more effectively used for the storage of CO2
than by the EOR method. This method may become an actuality in the future due to the soaring costs of natural gas.
Figure 7 shows the concept of the aquifer disposalof CO 2 which is already performed in Norway. The
Sleipner gas field is located in the Norway-owned portion of the North Sea, and natural gas produced fromthis gas field contains 9 vol.% CO 2. When the natural
gas is sold via pipeline, the CO 2 contained in the natural gas must be reduced to less than 1.5 vol.%.
Accordingly, the CO 2 is separated from the high-pressure natural gas that is produced. In Norway, a highCO 2 tax of US$50 per ton has been imposed since thebeginning of the 1990s. As a result, the CO 2 separated
from the natural gas is compressed and stored in aquifers approximately 1 000 meters below ground. This
project was the world’s first project in which CO2 is stored
full-scale under the ground. About one million tons of
CO2 has been stored per year since 1996.

Production
well

Injection of
CO2

Production
welle

San Juan
Basin
FA

IR

W

AY

Injection
pilot
CH2

CO2

CO2

CH2

Fig. 6 Concept of experiments regarding the storage of CO2 in coal seams and the recovery of methane(3)Sleipner A
Sleipner T

Gas from
Sleipner WestCO2 injection well

CO2
CO2

Utsira fomation
SleipnerEast
gas field

Sleipner East:
Production and injection wellFig. 7 Concept of storageof CO2 in aquifers
in Norway(4)Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)4

develop technologies for recovering CO2 during the beginning of 1990s before anybody else in the world. As noted
before, the development of technologies for recovering CO2
from flue gas was also begun in Europe and the U.S. aroundthe year 2000 as a measure against global warming.
The CO2 recovery systems include the systems listed
below. Among them, only the flue gas chemical absorption
method is currently put into practical use. It is considered
to be effective in increasing capacity while reducing costs.
(1) Recovery from flue gas(a) Chemical absorption method(b) Adsorption method(c) Membrane/chemical absorption method(2) Recovery before combustion(a) Reforming of natural gas/separation of CO2(b) Coal gasification/separation of CO2(3) Oxygen combustion
Fossil fuel is burned in power generation plants in order to generate high temperature and high pressure steam
so as to rotate steam turbines for the generation of electric
power. In general, the amount of energy contributing topower generation is 50% or less, and 50% or more of theenergy is lost when the steam is condensed, and heat due
to the lost energy is discarded into seas and rivers. When
CO2 is recovered using the chemical absorption method,most of the energy required may consist of low temperature heat. Accordingly, the heat discarded when the steam
is condensed in a power generating system can be well utilized to recover CO2 with less overall energy loss.

4. Chemical absorption based CO2 recovery technology
CO2 recovery from high-pressure natural gas and synthesis gas has been widely performed, and a large numberof technologies have been put into practical use. CO2 recovery from flue gas has not been performed so muchbecause of the following reasons: (1) its use was limited toa very small part (such as foods in those areas where CO2
is absent), and (2) its recovery has been technically difficult because flue gas is not pressurized and contains oxygenas well as SOx and NOx.
The technology which has been used for CO2 recovery
from flue gas uses monoethanolamine (MEA) which is said
to be the most basic amine. At present, the technology isowned by Fluor Daniel Inc. and ABB Lummus Crest Inc. of
the U.S. The technology has a number of shortcomings inwhich a large amount of energy is consumed during CO2
recovery and there is a significant loss of absorbent in therecovery process. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI)
has made extensive efforts to develop a new CO2 recovery
technology jointly with the Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Development of this new technology has been completed
and already commercialized which is capable of remarkably lowering the amount of energy used to recover CO2,
remarkably reducing the loss of absorbent, and recovering
CO2 at a lower cost than existing technology based on theuse of monoethanolamine.
Figure 8 shows a history of the development of technologies to recover CO2 from flue gas. Japan first began to

1990

1995

2000

2003

Co.: Developed and commercialized energy saving technology for MEA* DOW
absorbent in 1980s (the technology is now owned by Fluor Daniel Inc.)
Macgee Co.: Commercialized technology as coal flue gas-compatible technology* Kerrusing MEA absorbent in 1980s (the technology is now owned by ABB Lummus Crest Inc.)
Commercialization
developed and improved the chemical absorption method* MHI
jointly with the Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Various companies in Japan endeavor todevelop CO2 recovery technologies.

started research and* RITEdevelopment of chemical
absorption method andElectric Power Co., Inc./Hitachi:
membrane separation method.
* TokyoChemical absorption method
Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc./MHI: PTSA
countries, the U.S.,* Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc./MHI: PSA * European
and Canada started research* Hokuriku Electric Power Co., Inc./CCEC:
and development of CO2* Fluidized-bed PSA
recovery methods.
Electric Power Development Co./IHI:* O2 combustion method
Compared various* CCP:
systems with each other.
Central Research Institute of Electric Power* Industry: Chemical absorption method
University:* Regina
Chemical absorption methodof Texas:* University
Chemical absorption method* Kvaener: Research and development of Membrane/Amine method
Fig. 8 History of development of CO2 recovery technologies

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)

5

Figure 9 shows that the energy discarded in a condenser
can be well utilized when the energy of a boiler utilizing
heat energy based on the chemical absorption method is
obtained in the power generation system.
Figure 10 shows a plant that has been in operation since1999 which recovers CO2 from flue gas using the technology developed in the joint project of MHI and the Kansai
Electric Power Co., Inc. for utilization in the production ofurea.
CO2 is needs to be recovered at minimum cost, and thechemical absorption method can increase recovery capacity. MHI has completed the trial-design of a plant with a
Fig. 1
1) so that the CO2 recovery costcapacity of 3 000 t/d (Fig.
11can be remarkably reduced by an increase in capacity. MHI
examined the reduction in CO2 recovery cost and an increase in capacity as a measure against global warming,and found that the currently operating maximum power
generation plant was a coal-fired boiler plant of one million kilowatts which requires a CO2 recovery rate of 18 000
t/d, and that an increase in capacity must be further pursued in the future.

5. Trends in CO2 EOR and CO2 disposal projects in various countries
Much progress is being made in the effective use of CO2
as well as in various storage projects in many parts of theworld in addition to the CO2 storage project in Norway
mentioned earlier. Figure 12 shows the CO2 EOR projectin the Wayburn oil field of Canada. The source of CO2 isthe off-gas of the coal gasification plant in North Dakota
in the U.S. The CO 2 is fed to the Wayburn oil field in
Saskatchewan of Canada via pipelines and is injected into
oil reservoir as part of the EOR method. In this project,
5,000 t/d of CO2 was first injected into oil reservoir during
the fall of 2001, and it was confirmed that, in summer 2002,
the production of oil was increased by 5 400 bbl/d.

B

B Power loss due to steam
extractionA

A Use of steam energy toreboiler

Steam energy

Reboiler energy

Condenser energy

Fig. 9 Effective use of steam energy in power generation
plants and CO2 recovery plants.

Absorption tower
Regeneration
tower

Flue gas
coolerFig. 10 CO2 recovery plant for
urea processing delivered by MHI

0ReginaWeyburn
Saskatchewan

Fig. 11 Birds-eye view of 3 000 t/d plant

EstevanMontana

8 000

100
km

7 000

Manitoba

6 000

CANADA

5 000

USA

4 000

: Base water injection: Horizontal drilling: CO2EOR
Increased productionof oil due to CO2 EOR

3 000
North Dakota

2 000
1 000

CanadaJan-54Jan-58
Jan-62
Jan-66
Jan-70Jan-74Jan-78Jan-82Jan-86
Jan-90Jan-94Jan-98Jan-02Jan-06
Jan-10Jan-14Jan-18Jan-22
Jan-260
BeulahBismarck

U.S.A

Year
Fig. 12 CO2 EOR project in Weyburn, Canada (5)Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)

6

Snowvit concession
CO2 injection
mMSL
2 300

0

Gas generation

5 km
rock
Cap lock

2 400
Utsirafomation

2 500
2 600
: Gas

: Oil

: ShaleSleipner concession
Fig. 13 CO2 underground storage plan in Norway Snowvit LNG Project (6)CO2 is stored in the lower layers of the natural gas layers. The cost of CO2 injection is US$100 million morethan the cost of CO2 discharge into the atmosphere.

Figure 13 shows the project for producing natural gas
from the Snowvit gas field in the Sea of Norway located in
the north of Norway in which the gas is delivered in theform of LNG. Since the natural gas contains CO2, the CO2
is separated from the natural gas and is stored in aquifers
2 500 meters underground. At present, the construction of
an LNG plant has been started. The operation of the plantis scheduled to begin in 2006 with a CO2 aquifer injection
amount of 700 000 t/year.

Major means that can be effective in addressing the
problems of global warming and energy resources can besummarized as follows:(1) recovery and storage of CO2,
(2) CO2 EOR, and(3) coal gasification GTL and DME.
Naturally, the above measures are mainly centered on
the use of fossil fuel. Therefore, it is felt that not only
expansion of the safe use of nuclear power, energy conservation, and an increase in efficiency but also the economy
of use of fuel will become more important factors, as well.

6. Solution for global warming and energy problems
As noted in section 2, the energy problem expected tooccur in the future is the shortage of oil and followed by
the shortage of natural gas. It is anticipated that the rateof reliance on coal will increase from around the year 2020.
Since oil is liquid, it is easiest to handle. Natural gas is
the next most difficult to handle followed by coal, which is
the most difficult fossil fuel to handle, respectively. As for
currently completed systems, automotive vehicles already
use liquid fuel, and liquid fuel is expected to be produced
from natural gas as well as coal in the near future.
When the amount of coal utilized increases in the future, it is natural that the amount of CO2 discharged will
also increase. In addition, in the course of synthesizing
liquid fuel or DME by gasifying coal, a large volume of CO2
is produced. To address this problem, it is necessary torecover and store CO2.
The CO2 EOR can kill two birds with one stone, that is,
it can cope with the shortage of oil while also reduce thedischarge of CO2. First, the method must become morewidespread, and then coal gasification GTL and DME mustbe put into practical use as early as practicable.

Masaki Iijima

7. Conclusion
Japan relies on 99% of its oil, natural gas, and coal on
imports from overseas. It cannot help but be said thatsuch a structure is very weak from the perspective of not
only energy security but also economy.
In the future environment where the supply of oil andnatural gas is considered to be insecure, CO2 EOR is a technology that not only can produce and utilize oil resources
maximally but can also contribute very significantly to controlling the discharge of CO2. Moreover, LNG, GTL, andDME plants produce a large amount of CO2 and, therefore, it is effective to control the emission of CO2 in order
to eliminate the emission of CO2 from these plants.
References(1) ASPO-ODAC Newsletter No.18, June 2002
(2) Peak Oil Presentation at the Technical University ofClausthal C.J. Campbell Dec. 2000

(3) Catalogue of ARI(4) Material furnished by Statoil(5) IEA Greenhouse Issue(6) Material furnished by Statoil

Toru Takashina

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 4 (Aug. 2004)

7