skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) sites

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1394676
Grant/Contract Number:
FC26-05NT42592
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Published Article
Journal Name:
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 51; Journal Issue: C; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-09-25 09:09:11; Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
Netherlands
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Azzolina, Nicholas A., Peck, Wesley D., Hamling, John A., Gorecki, Charles D., Ayash, Scott C., Doll, Thomas E., Nakles, David V., and Melzer, L. Stephen. How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) sites. Netherlands: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008.
Azzolina, Nicholas A., Peck, Wesley D., Hamling, John A., Gorecki, Charles D., Ayash, Scott C., Doll, Thomas E., Nakles, David V., & Melzer, L. Stephen. How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) sites. Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008.
Azzolina, Nicholas A., Peck, Wesley D., Hamling, John A., Gorecki, Charles D., Ayash, Scott C., Doll, Thomas E., Nakles, David V., and Melzer, L. Stephen. 2016. "How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) sites". Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008.
@article{osti_1394676,
title = {How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) sites},
author = {Azzolina, Nicholas A. and Peck, Wesley D. and Hamling, John A. and Gorecki, Charles D. and Ayash, Scott C. and Doll, Thomas E. and Nakles, David V. and Melzer, L. Stephen},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008},
journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control},
number = C,
volume = 51,
place = {Netherlands},
year = 2016,
month = 8
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 1work
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:
  • Cited by 1
  • We present a direct side-by-side comparison of the adsorption and desorption of nitrogen on the atomically-stepped Ru(1 0 9) surface and the atomically-flat Ru(0 0 1) surface. Both infrared reflection absorption spectroscopy (IRAS) and temperature programmed desorption (TPD) are employed in this study, along with density functional theory (DFT). We find that the chemisorptive terminal binding of N2 is stronger on the atomic step sites than on the terrace sites of Ru(1 0 9) as indicated by TPD and by a reduction of the singleton vibrational frequency, ν(N2), by 9 cm-1, comparing steps to terraces. In addition, we find thatmore » metal–metal compression effects on the terrace sites of Ru(1 0 9) cause stronger binding of N2 than found on the Ru(0 0 1) surface, as indicated by a reduction of the terrace-N2 singleton vibrational frequency by 11 cm-1 when compared to the singleton N2 mode on Ru(0 0 1). These spectroscopic results, comparing compressed terrace sites to Ru(0 0 1) sites and confirmed by TPD and DFT, indicate that N2 bonds primarily as a σ-donor to Ru. Using equimolar 15N2 and 14N2, it is found that dynamic dipole coupling effects present at higher N2 coverages may be partially eliminated by isotopically detuning neighbor oscillators. These experiments, considered together, indicate that the order of the bonding strength for terminal-N2 on Ru is: atomic steps > atomic terraces > Ru(0 0 1). DFT calculations also show that 4-fold coordinated N2 may be stabilized in several structures on the double-atom wide steps of Ru(1 0 9) and that this form of bonding produces substantial decreases in the N2 vibrational frequency and increases in the binding energy, compared to terminally-bound N2. These highly coordinated N2 species are not observed by IRAS.« less
  • Abstract not provided.
  • The terrestrial ecosystems of North America have been identified as a sink of atmospheric CO 2 though there is no consensus on the magnitude. However, the emissions of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (CH 4 and N 2O) may offset or even overturn the climate cooling effect induced by the CO 2 sink. Using a coupled biogeochemical model, in this study, we have estimated the combined global warming potentials (GWP) of CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O fluxes in North American terrestrial ecosystems and quantified the relative contributions of environmental factors to the GWP changes during 1979–2010. The uncertainty rangemore » for contemporary global warming potential has been quantified by synthesizing the existing estimates from inventory, forward modeling, and inverse modeling approaches. Our “best estimate” of net GWP for CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O fluxes was₋0.50 ± 0.27 Pg CO 2 eq/year (1 Pg=1015 g) in North American terrestrial ecosystems during 2001–2010. The emissions of CH 4 and N 2O from terrestrial ecosystems had offset about two thirds (73% ± 14%) of the land CO 2 sink in the North American continent, showing large differences across the three countries, with offset ratios of 57% ± 8% in US, 83% ± 17 % in Canada and 329% ± 119 % in Mexico. Climate change and elevated tropospheric ozone concentration have contributed the most to GWP increase, while elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration have contributed the most to GWP reduction. Extreme drought events over certain periods could result in a positive GWP. By integrating the existing estimates, we have found a wide range of uncertainty for the combined GWP. In conclusion, from both climate change science and policy perspectives, it is necessary to integrate ground and satellite observations with models for a more accurate accounting of these three greenhouse gases in North America.« less
  • This paper investigates how greenhouse gases are accounted and reported in the waste sector in South Africa. Developing countries (including South Africa) do not have binding emission reduction targets, but many of them publish different greenhouse gas emissions data which have been accounted and reported in different ways. Results show that for South Africa, inventories at national and municipal level are the most important tools in the process of accounting and reporting greenhouse gases from waste. For the development of these inventories international initiatives were important catalysts at national and municipal levels, and assisted in developing local expertise, resulting inmore » increased output quality. However, discrepancies in the methodology used to account greenhouse gases from waste between inventories still remain a concern. This is a challenging issue for developing countries, especially African ones, since higher accuracy methods are more data intensive. Analysis of the South African inventories shows that results from the recent inventories can not be compared with older ones due to the use of different accounting methodologies. More recently the use of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) procedures in Africa, geared towards direct measurements of greenhouse gases from landfill sites, has increased and resulted in an improvement of the quality of greenhouse gas inventories at municipal level.« less