Downloaded from https://iranpaper.

ir
https://www.tarjomano.com

Energy xxx (2016) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector

Jingfan Wang a, b, John O'Donnell c, Adam R. Brandt a, *
a
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, United States
c
GlassPoint Inc., Fremont, CA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We examine the potential for solar energy in global oil operations, including both extraction and
Received 1 August 2016 transport (“upstream”) and refining (“downstream”). Two open-source oil-sector GHG models are
Received in revised form applied to a set of 83 representative global oil fields and 75 refinery crude oil streams (representing ~25%
4 October 2016
of global production). Results from these models are used to estimate per-barrel energy intensities
Accepted 26 October 2016
Available online xxx
(power, heat), which are scaled to generate country-level demand for heat and power. Multiple solar
resource quality cutoff criteria are used to determine which regions may profitably use solar. Potential
solar thermal capacity ranges from 19 to 44 GWth in upstream operations, and from 21 to 95 GWth in
Keywords:
Petroleum
downstream operations. Potential PV deployment ranges from 6 to 11 GWe in upstream operations and
Solar PV 17e91 GWe in downstream operations. The ranges above are due to both per-bbl variation in energy
Solar thermal intensity, as well as uncertainty in solar resource quality criteria. Potential solar deployment in upstream
Oil and gas operations would displace a much smaller fraction of upstream energy use because a large fraction of
Greenhouse gas global upstream energy use is are either offshore or in high latitude regions (e.g., Russia, Canada, Central
LCA Asia).
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction adoption of photovoltaics (PV) by major international oil com-

Oil and natural gas supplied nearly 55% of global primary energy
consumption in 2012 [1]. Supplying oil in required quantities re-
quires a major industrial effort to produce 90 million barrels of
hydrocarbons per day and process it for use in our cars, trucks, and
airplanes. Similarly, enormous quantities of natural gas are pro-
duced and transported across continents, and increasingly over
oceans as liquefied natural gas (LNG). While the oil and gas sector
produces and sells energy products, it is also a large consumer of
energy.
Given the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
all sectors of the economy, oil and gas companies should be inter-
ested in reducing GHG footprints from energy use by their opera-
tions. Could solar energy e carried by heat, steam, or electricity e
be used in significant amounts by the global oil and gas sector in the
future? If so, what is the scale of possible demand for solar energy
in oil and gas operations?
Some prior studies have examined the use of solar energy in oil
and gas operations. Pinkse and van den Buuse [2] examined the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abrandt@stanford.edu (A.R. Brandt).
panies in a case study approach. Absi Halabi et al. [3] estimated
future potential energy use in the oil and gas sector and examine
the potential use of solar in oil production, including temperature
and energy requirements for thermal uses such as heated separa-
tions and solvent regeneration. Another specific application is the
use of PV for cathodic protection against corrosion in remote lo-
cations [4].
Perhaps most fruitfully, a number of papers [5e9] have explored
the use of solar energy for steam generation for use in heavy oil
recovery via thermal enhanced oil recovery (thermal EOR). These
papers have shown a good match between the quality of solar
steam and that demanded for thermal recovery processes. In
particular, coupled reservoir and geomechanical studies have
shown that intermittent steam injection does not adversely affect
reservoir performance due to the large thermal inertia of reservoir
rock-fluid systems [6,7,9].
Energy use in global hydrocarbon (HC) operations has been
estimated by the International Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) or-
ganization [10], and by the International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) [11], an interna-
tional environmental consortium for oil and gas operators.
IOGP produces a yearly environmental performance report [12],
which includes data on air and water emissions as well as energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
2 J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9
use. In 2014, IOGP companies were responsible for producing 2077
million tonnes of HCs, or about 29% of global HC production (~15.5
billion BOE) [12, p. 7]. IOGP estimated the energy use for all activ-
ities upstream of the refinery inlet for oil, and upstream of the city
or facility gate for natural gas [12].
The IOGP-estimated energy intensity of HC production varies
greatly by region (see Supporting Information (SI) Table S1). For
example, the Middle East region only consumed 0.36 GJ of primary
energy per tonne (t) of HC produced, while North America
consumed almost 10 times this amount at 3.09 GJ/t HC. IOGP does
not differentiate the type of energy consumed, but instead breaks
down energy use by “on site” vs. “purchased” energy [12, p. 33].
Scaling each IOGP region's energy consumption term by the frac-
tion of that region's production included in IOGP datasets, 2013
total global energy consumption would be 10.5 EJ of primary energy
(see SI Table S1).
IPIECA [13e15] covers both upstream HC activities and refinery
operations (see SI Table S2). The most recent IPIECA report includes
data from 2009 [15, p. 2]. Summing upstream categories that align
with IOGP results (“production/processing” and “pipelines”), total
upstream consumption was 9.92 EJ in 2009 [15]. BP reported total
HC production increases of 10.8% between 2009 and 2013 [16].
Therefore, extrapolating IPEICA results for 2013 would therefore
estimate approximately 10.99 EJ consumed, or 4.6% larger than
IOGP figures.
IPIECA also estimated refinery energy use. IPEICA estimated
refinery consumption of 11.56 EJ in 2009 [15]. Extrapolating this
figure by BP-estimated crude oil output growth (6.2% from 2009 to
2013) [16], results in 2013 refinery primary energy consumption of
12.3 EJ.
In summary, if we combine IOGP and IPEICA figures, global
upstream energy consumption in the oil and gas sector in 2013 was
approximately 10e11 EJ, while refining energy use was approxi-
mately 12e13 EJ. Since these quantities represent z4e4.5% of
global primary energy consumption, the oil and gas sector clearly
represents a large target opportunity for solar energy.
Expanding on this prior work, we perform in this paper a pre-
liminary assessment of possible capacity for solar energy to supply
the needs of the oil and gas sector (henceforth, we will use the term
hydrocarbons, HCs, when referring to oil and gas broadly). Because
no global datasets are available at the level of detail needed to
model solar energy applications, we apply a statistics-based
modeling approach that derives possible uses from a suite of
open source models applied to 75 representative global oilfields.
We model petroleum operations to examine the breakdown of
energy use within the industry into thermal and electrical re-
quirements, which can best be supplied by solar thermal systems
and solar photovoltaic systems, respectively. Using global solar
resource database, we perform an overall assessment of possible
use of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic power in oil production.
In addition, we explore the uncertainty associated with modeled
per-bbl intensities for upstream and refinery operations.
2. Methods
2.1. Bottom-up energy intensity of oil operations
In order to estimate potential for solar use in HC production, we
performed bottom-up modeling of energy use in oil operations. We
performed this bottom-up modeling because we felt that it pro-
vides better resolution on the potential uses of solar energy in oil
and gas operations. Because sparse data are available on global gas
processing and production practices, we focused this process on
estimating energy use in producing and refining oil. Some of the
modeled energy use that we calculated might also reasonably be
Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
https://www.tarjomano.com
allocated to the co-produced associated natural gas, which is pro-
duced along with many global oil operations.
2.1.1. Upstream oil energy intensity
Energy use at 83 global oil fields or sub-field regions was esti-
mated using the Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Esti-
mator (OPGEE) model [17,18]. The OPGEE model has been described
extensively in prior studies, including a comparison to other oil
sector emissions models [19] as well as detailed uncertainty anal-
ysis [20,21]. These data were collected for the Oil Climate Index
project [22]. These 83 fields account for z26% of 2013 world crude
plus condensate production in 2013 [23]. These fields are chosen to
be representative of the global oil industry, including fields in all
geographic locations (all major global producing regions), in all
types of environments (e.g., onshore and offshore) and using all
major production techniques (primary production, enhanced oil
recovery, etc.). Some of these fields represent multiple zones of the
same region or “play” (e.g. Eagle Ford field is represented by four
zones). See SI Table S3 for field details.
OPGEE estimates the energy use for all key procedures in up-
stream operations, which include exploration, production &
extraction, surface processing, maintenance, waste disposal and
transportation to refineries [17,18]. Extensive OPGEE model docu-
mentation is available to the reader, and the model is available for
free download and use from Stanford University servers [17].
The 83 modeled oilfields were classified into four types:
1. Onshore oil
2. Offshore oil
3. Oil produced using thermal EOR
4. Oil sands mined from near-surface bitumen deposits
For purposes of this classification, in situ thermally-produced
bitumen from Canada was classified as “thermal EOR” while
bitumen mining projects were classified as “oil sands” projects.
For each oil category, the average energy use of each oil type was
determined using OPGEE model results (see Table S4). Additionally,
percentiles of each consumption type were computed.
Supporting Information section S3 gives for the complete set of
specific OPGEE model changes, including direct reporting of
worksheets and cells in which OPGEE model settings were
changed.
Stated simply, the following modeling choices were made:

For onshore fields, the fraction of electricity generated onsite is
set equal to 0%, in order that electricity demands are reported as
electricity, rather than on-site consumed natural gas used to
generate power.

Where energy demand is thermal in nature (e.g., boilers, solvent
regeneration) energy is assumed provided by natural gas.

Where the energy need is as work or rotational motion of shafts
(e.g., pumps, compressors) this work is assumed provided by
electricity.

For compression and refrigeration work of gas fractionation
(demethanizer), we assume these processes are driven by nat-
ural gas turbines.

Offshore fields modeled assuming all power provided by on-site
simple gas turbines.
Example electricity intensity distributions across are presented
in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 (left) shows electricity used in upstream production/
lifting, while (right) shows surface processing and separations
(right). See SI Table S4 for full OPGEE model statistical results,
including mean, standard deviation, 5%ile, 25%ile, 50%ile 75%ile,
and 95%ile values for four energy types and four classes of fields.
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com

J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9 3

Fig. 1. Distribution of production electricity intensities (a) and surface processing electricity intensities (b). Distributions are shown for all fields in upstream dataset (83 oilfields).

2.1.2. Refinery energy intensity
To estimate refinery energy use, we used the Petroleum Refinery
Life Cycle Inventory Model (PRELIM) of the University of Calgary
[24,25]. PRELIM estimates energy consumption by both process
unit (23 units) and energy carrier (four energy carriers). We ran
PRELIM on 72 modeled crude oils. These oils overlap with OPGEE-
modeled fields. Again, these PRELIM crudes were modeled as part
of the Oil Climate Index project [22]. SI Table S3 gives crudes and
crude blends modeled in PRELIM. Each crude is assumed refined
using the default PRELIM refinery configuration for that oil.
First, each crude oil was modeled in PRELIM and data were
extracted for four energy carriers: power, natural gas, H2, and steam
(all in MJ/d). Energy needs are estimated for each carrier for all 23
modeled PRELIM process units.
Next, we compute weighted-average fuel use (MJ/bbl) of each
process unit. Crude production volumes for each crude were used
to compute weighted intensity of process unit k:
efficient, and H2 production is 60% efficient (see Ref. [25] sheet
“Coking refinery calcs”). Because global refineries are assumed to
be less efficient than the PRELIM-modeled highly-integrated North
American refinery, an additional inefficiency factor of 1.2 was
applied to estimate global refinery energy use (i.e., a typical global
refinery uses 20% more energy than modeled in PRELIM due to sub-
optimal process integration). We discuss this factor below in the
results section. These relatively conservative assumptions are
required to align PRELIM results with global reported refinery en-
ergy use. See SI Table S7 for more details.
Fig. 2 presents example distributions of natural gas and steam
use in the atmospheric distillation column. See SI Table S6 for full
PRELIM model statistical results, including mean, standard devia-
tion, 5%ile, 25%ile, 50%ile 75%ile, and 95%ile values for four energy
types and 9 process units.

2.2. Validation: prediction of global energy use to align bottom-up

P72  
i¼1 Fi;k Vi MJ process modeling assumptions
Eave;k ¼ P72
bbl
i¼1 Vi
We can use above-derived per-bbl energy intensities to estimate
where Fi,k is the fuel use in process unit k while processing crude oil global energy use to compare to above reviewed sector energy use
i, and Vi is the volume of crude oil i in the analysis basket. SI Table S5 estimates from IPEICA and IOGP.
gives weighted average results for each process unit. We also
generate non-weighted distribution percentiles (SI Table S6) for
PRELIM results.
In calculating the weighted average fuel use, some results are
not included in the summation: (a) if fuel use Fi,k is exactly 0 MJ/bbl
(occurs when modeled crude oil i doesn't pass through process unit
k in the default PRELIM refinery configuration for that crude oil); (b)
fuel use Fi,k is negative (non-physical); (c) or fuel use Fi,k is a positive
non-zero value less than 1  105 MJ/bbl (this is 4 orders of
magnitude below typical process intensities).
Next, we consider the efficiency of generating energy carriers
from primary energy (e.g., steam generation efficiency). Due to lack
of a globally disaggregated dataset on conversion efficiencies,
overall efficiencies are assumed as follows:

Power generation: 0.3 MJ electricity/MJ fuel lower heating value

(LHV);

Gas use: 1.0 MJ gas used on site/MJ gas LHV;

Steam generation: 0.7 MJ steam/MJ gas LHV;

Hydrogen production: 0.5 MJ hydrogen/MJ gas LHV.

These efficiencies are more conservative than those assumed in Fig. 2. Distribution of atmospheric tower (tower þ furnace) natural gas and steam
the PRELIM model: PRELIM assumes that steam generation is 88% consumption.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
4 J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9
2.2.1. Estimating global upstream consumption
Global estimates of primary oil production for 2013 are obtained
from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [23]. EIA crude
oil þ lease condensate (henceforth C þ C) is used as the measure of
global crude production capacity. Note that C þ C excludes natural
gas plant liquids (NGPLs), refinery processing gain, and “other liq-
uids” (mostly biomass). EIA C þ C production volumes for each
country are given in SI Table S8.
In order to estimate production of each of our four oil types, we
first estimate offshore production volumes. For this task, the Pe-
troleum Economist World Energy Atlas (6th ed.) was utilized [26].
For each country, the relevant petroleum infrastructure map was
consulted and the country was classified as follows:

The country is classified as “offshore” if all or materially all of oil
fields are offshore.

The country is classified as “onshore” if all or materially all of the
oil fields are onshore or if the country is landlocked.

The country is classified as “mixed onshore/offshore” if both
onshore and offshore resources are present.
Of the 96 countries reported in EIA the crude oil production
databases for 2013, a total of 44 countries were classified as
“onshore”, 15 countries were classified as “offshore”, and 37
countries were classified as “mixed onshore/offshore”. For coun-
tries that are classified as mixed onshore/offshore, a two-phase
approach is used. If the mixed onshore/offshore country pro-
duced more than 1% of EIA 2013 C þ C production, it was considered
a material petroleum producer and worthy of further disaggrega-
tion. If a country produced less than 1% of EIA 2013C þ C produc-
tion, then it was treated with a simplifying assumption: production
was divided into 50% onshore and 50% offshore production. A total
of 16 mixed onshore/offshore countries were further disaggregated
based on this criterion (listed in Table S8).
To disaggregate production in these 16 “mixed onshore/
offshore” countries, the World Energy Atlas is used to determine
names of offshore fields [26]. In some countries, other maps are
used to supplement the World Energy Atlas (see SI Table S8). After
the list of offshore fields is generated, production volumes for
offshore fields are obtained from a variety of data sources (see SI
Table S9). By preference, data from the Oil & Gas Journal (hence-
forth OGJ) 2015 Worldwide Production Survey are used [27]. In many
cases, no field-level production data are available for the countries
of interest. In these cases, a variety of supplemental data sources
are used [28e42]. (see SI Table S8 for more explanation). In some
countries, no comprehensive estimate of offshore production is
possible. In these cases, an approximation is made (see SI Table S9
for details). Using the above estimation methods, total offshore
production in 2013 was estimated at ~29,000 kbbl/d. This repre-
sents ~34% of EIA 2013C þ C production. This is in line with global
offshore estimates [43,44].
After offshore production is removed, onshore C þ C output is
further subdivided into conventional production, thermal EOR, and
mined oil sands production. Thermal EOR volumes are estimated
using the 2014 OGJ EOR survey [45]. This OGJ EOR dataset appears
to be infrequently updated and incomplete. This data is supple-
mented in Canada using data on in situ thermal recovery of bitumen
and upgraded synthetic crude oil (SCO), as provided by Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) datasets [46,47]. Mined
oil sands production is also included from CAPP datasets, including
both diluted bitumen and SCO [46,47]. Data on Venezuelan EOR
operations are included using recent non-OGJ reports [48]. In the
case of Oman, OGJ data are supplemented with country-specific
data on heavy oil production.
For crude transport to refineries, a simple estimate of pipeline
Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
https://www.tarjomano.com
energy consumption is constructed as follows. The OPGEE intensity
for electric pipeline pumps is 18.6 kJe per bbl-km. Assuming a
typical pipeline transport distance of 500 km gives electricity re-
quirements of 2.6 kWhe per bbl. We round this value up to 3 kWhe/
bbl. We do not include ocean shipping energy use due to lack of
potential for use of solar in international shipping.
After disaggregation, we estimate production volume of each
type of oil for each country (see SI Table S7). For each of these four
oil types, the weighted-average energy consumption rates
computed as described above with the OPGEE model was used to
estimate country-level and global upstream energy consumption as
gas and electricity. The impact of uncertainty in OPGEE model re-
sults is explored further below.
2.2.2. Estimating global refinery consumption
Similarly to the above effort to estimate energy consumption for
upstream operations, we use the OGJ 2015 Worldwide Refinery
Survey (henceforth WWRS) [49] to determine capacities of global
refineries.
WWRS includes per-refinery process unit sizing for 641 global
refineries. Each refinery includes calendar-day process throughputs
(bbl/cd) for 57 process unit or sub-process-unit capacities. These
volumes are summed to the country level, and process-unit-level
weighted energy intensities from PRELIM are applied for power,
gas, H2, steam.
Only 95% of WWRS process throughputs (measured in bbl/cd
capacity) can be aligned with an equivalent PRELIM process unit. So
the total energy calculated from PRELIM results is increased by 5%
account for missing capacity (i.e., it is assumed that missing process
units consume, on average, the same amount of energy per bbl of
throughput as the PRELIM-modeled process units).
By combining the country-level process unit capacities and the
PRELIM-derived energy intensities, we can estimate both country-
level and global refinery energy consumption.
2.3. Estimating global size of solar energy market in the oil and gas
sector
To estimate solar potential, solar resource quality screening is
performed at the country-level. Every country on earth receives
more than enough total solar energy to power its oil and gas op-
erations, so absolute solar availability is not a useful classification
tool. Instead, we use three different measures of solar resource
quality to screen countries for solar energy viability.
2.3.1. Solar resource database
A global dataset of solar energy potential produced by the US
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is used for the es-
timate of solar resource quality by country [50]. NREL reports re-
sources for solar PV as total radiation with panel tilt equal to
latitude. NREL divides solar resources into 14 classes (bins) of
0.5 kWh/m2 per day. NREL computes available energy in each class
for each country.
For solar thermal, the NREL dataset estimates direct normal
irradiation (DNI) and groups resources into 10 classes, ranging from
<3 kWh/m2-d to > 7.75 kWh/m2-d. The NREL dataset also includes
capacity factors computed using the System Advisory Model (SAM)
model [51], assuming a trough-based solar thermal system with a
solar multiple of 2, and 6 h of thermal storage.
For each country we compute the energy-weighted average
capacity factors (CFs) for both solar thermal and solar PV. Solar
thermal CFs are significantly higher than solar PV CFs due to the
assumption by NREL of in-built solar thermal storage. The resulting
weighted CFs for solar thermal and PV systems are shown in SI
Table S10.
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9
Because of the large thermal energy requirements associated
with surface processing and crude refining, we use the solar ther-
mal DNI dataset for country-level solar resource quality screening.
The first method is “area-based” solar quality screening. For the
area-based method, DNI classes 3 and below (<4 kWh/m2-d) are
considered non-viable. DNI classes 4e6 are considered average
(4e6.25 kWh/m2-d). DNI classes 7 and above are considered
excellent (>6.25 kWh/m2-d). The area of land in each country in
each class is tabulated.
Using these land areas, we set up an area-based screen with
“lax” and “stringent” settings (resulting in high and low solar
resource available, respectively). The lax screen requires that more
than 50% of a country's land has average or excellent solar quality
(i.e., above 4 kWh/m2-d). 72 out 96 countries in the EIA database
meet this lax screen. The stringent screen adds a second condition
that at least 10% of the energy in a country must come from land
with excellent (>6.25 kWh/m2-d) DNI resources. 31 of 96 countries
meet this stringent screen. These countries represent 67% and 43%
of global production, respectively.
Secondly, we generate a “sun-hours-based” screen. In this
screen the energy-weighted average sun hours for a country is
computed (i.e., sun hours averaged across all land weighted by
energy fraction contributed by each bin). The lax screen requires
that energy-weighted sun hour for a country is greater than
4.5 kWh/m2/d. The stringent screen requires that the energy-
weighted average sun hours for the country must exceed
5.5 kWh/m2/d. 70 countries meet the lax sun-hour based screen,
while 33 meet the stringent screen. These countries represent 75%
and 47% of global production, respectively.
Lastly, we generate a “capacity-factor-based” screen. The
energy-weighted capacity factor is first computed for each country.
The lax requirement is that the solar thermal CF must exceed 22.5%
(including storage). The stringent requirement is that the solar
thermal CF must exceed 27.5% (including storage). The countries
meeting the lax criteria (63 countries) make up 64% of global
production, while those meeting the stringent criteria (38 coun-
tries) represent 38% of production.
These bounds are meant to be approximate measures of the
economic quality of the solar resource in a country: countries with
poor quality solar resources will require comparatively more capital
to generate a given amount of solar energy (e.g., low resource
quality does not imply that there is not enough solar power to run
refineries and production equipment, only that it would be more
expensive to do so). The results for each country and each quality
screen are given in SI Table S10.
In general, the lax screens likely include some countries with
low practical economic solar potential (e.g., Finland passes the lax
area-based screen). In contrast, the stringent screens are more
strenuous, potentially excluding some regions that may in fact be
profitable (e.g., Kuwait fails the stringent area-based screen due to
nearly all land having high-average resource but little land with
excellent resource). Many countries are included using some solar
resources criteria but excluded using other criteria.
2.3.2. Volumes produced and processed in countries passing quality
screens
Total EIA 2013C þ C production was ~76,000 kbbl/d. The above
screens result in between ~35% and 75% of global production
(stringent capacity-factor screen and lax sun-hour screen respec-
tively). Major losses in global potential include Canada, UK/Nor-
wegian North Sea, and Russia, which together produce a non-trivial
fraction of global output.
If we combine the above solar quality screens with the
requirement that production be onshore for use of solar, the
amounts of production usefully using solar energy drops. For
Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
https://www.tarjomano.com
5
example, using the area-based screen in conjunction with the
offshore requirement, the lax and stringent screens only allow 41%
and 30% of global C þ C production, respectively (compared with
67% and 43% without offshore screen).
Some 870 kbbl/d of 2013 thermal EOR took place in countries
meeting the lax area-based resource screen, while 305 kbbl/d are
produced via thermal EOR in countries meeting the stringent area-
based screen. The differences in these resources emerge from
Canada failing both area-based screens and Venezuela meeting the
lax area-based screen but failing the stringent area-based screen.
No mined oil sands production occurs in regions meeting either
solar resource screen.
The WWRS database contain process units with a total of 200.7
million bbl/calendar day of capacity. Of these process units, some
128.8 million bbl/calendar day of throughput is contained in
countries passing the lax area-based screen (64.2% of total process
unit capacity), while 88.3 million bbl/calendar day is contained in
countries passing the stringent area-based screen (44.0% of total
process unit capacity). These fractions are higher than the upstream
fractions meeting the solar resource screens due to the fact that all
refineries are onshore and therefore no offshore correction is made.
2.3.3. Alignment of primary energy demands with solar resources
In order to estimate the primary solar energy required to supply
upstream oilfield needs, the following assumptions were made in
relating OPGEE consumption types to solar energy resources:

Pumping, lifting, compression and other primary electricity
demand would be supplied by solar PV;

Process heat, steam generation, and heated chemical separa-
tions (e.g., solvent regeneration) are assumed to be able to be
supplied by solar thermal energy.
For solar use in refineries, the following assumptions were made
to align PRELIM-derived intensities with solar energy resources:

Direct electricity use and H2 production are assumed to be
supplied by PV, with a PV-to-H2 electrolyzer efficiency of 50%.

Refinery requirements currently met with natural gas or steam
use are assumed to be provided by solar thermal at a 1:1
replacement ratio (e.g., 1 MJ of reported steam consumption in
current refinery steam demands can be met with 1 MJ of solar-
thermal-based steam).
Note that in both of these cases, detailed unit process analysis
would be required to estimate the temperatures at which thermal
energy needs to be provided in each case. For the current analysis,
we assume that thermal needs can be met with solar thermal.
To compute the amount of energy able to be supplied by solar
systems, the power rates estimated above for all uses (using
OPGEE- and PRELIM-derived factors) are multiplied by the tech-
nology- and country-specific CF. Each country passing a particular
solar quality screen has a solar thermal and PV CF). Recall that
NREL-computed CFs assume no storage for PV and 6 h of thermal
storage for solar thermal systems.
3. Results
3.1. Alignment with reported “top-down” data
First we report the results of scaling OPGEE- and PRELIM-
derived energy intensities to global oil volumes for both produc-
tion and refining sectors.
Multiplying the country-level C þ C production volumes for
each category from Table S7 by the OPGEE-derived energy
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com

6 J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9

intensities from Table S4 results provides a scaled “bottom-up”
estimate of primary energy use in global upstream operations. In
order to generate a comparable value for primary energy use,
OPGEE-derived electricity use from offsite was assumed generated
at average 33% efficiency (MJ e-/MJ primary energy). The resulting
modeled global energy consumption in upstream operations is
10.76 EJ/y, which is within the range reported above from IOGP and
IPEICA industry datasets (10e11 EJ/y).
Multiplying country-level refinery throughputs from the WWRS
by the PRELIM-derived refining energy intensities reported in
Table S5, the resulting bottom-up figure for primary energy con-
sumption in refinery operations in the world is 11.96 EJ. This result
aligns well with the top-down estimates of 12e13 EJ in 2013 from
the IPEICA results presented above. Note, that if the above-
described global adjustments to PRELIM process unit intensity
and energy conversion efficiencies are not performed to account for
differences between global refineries and PRELIM refinery, the
resulting bottom-up global refinery energy consumption estimate
is 9.49 EJ/y, significantly below the IPEICA-derived range.
Note that the mix of refinery intensities is not consistent glob-
ally. EIA [52a,b] reports that energy consumption at US refineries
was 3.35 EJ in 2013. US crude distillation capacity was 17.8 million
bbl per day in 2013 [53], compared to global crude distillation ca-
pacity of 88.03 million bbl per day [49], thus US refineries repre-
sented 20.2% of primary global refinery capacity. If we simply use
this share to extrapolate US energy use to global refineries, we
would estimate global refinery energy use at 16.6 EJ for 2013,
significantly larger than IPIECA refinery energy use estimate. This
discrepancy is likely due to the fact that US refineries are signifi-
cantly more complex than the average global refinery.
3.2. Potential for solar energy use in oil and gas sector
Using the above methods and the three sets of solar quality
screening criteria, we can estimate the power capacity of solar
energy, both thermal and electric, in upstream and downstream
operations. Table 1 shows the global potential for installed up-
stream (production and processing) solar capacity in GW under the
lax and stringent settings for the 3 solar resource quality screens. As
can be seen, the 3 screening methods given qualitatively similar
ranges of capacity solar PV and solar thermal installations. The sun-
hour-based screening method tends to result in higher estimates of
solar viability, while the capacity-factor-based screen results in low
estimates of potential. Table 1 also shows the potential energy
generated each year in TWh per year and EJ per year. These results
include country-and technology specific CFs noted above.
Table 2 shows the corresponding global results for PV and ST
potential for downstream (refinery) uses under stringent and lax
solar quality screens. As can be seen, the potential for refinery use is
larger (potentially reaching near 100 GW of both PV and ST).
However, the differences between lax and stringent potential are
larger for the sun-hour based and capacity-factor-based screens
than for the area-based screen. This difference is due to the fact that
the USA passes both lax and stringent area-based screens but fails
the stringent sun-hour and capacity-factor screens.
Note that the potential use of solar PV in the upstream oil in-
dustry is between 0.06 and 0.14 EJ/y, depending on screening rules
used. Potential PV use in refining ranges from 0.13 to 0.56 EJ/y.
These values are generally less than 10% of the estimated global
energy use in the oil and gas sector. This relatively low share is due
to the following factors (discussed above):

Solar screening criteria limit possibility of use of solar energy in
large oil producing and oil refining regions (e.g., Russia, Canada,
Northern Europe, and northern USA).

Offshore production of ~30% of global oil output limits solar use
in upstream (production) operations.

Transport energy use is limited to pipeline transport, as tank-
erage is assumed unable to be fueled with solar energy.

Solar capacity factors limit energy supply without large-scale
storage.

Estimates are based on crude oil production, processing and
refining and do not include dry gas production and processing.
Capacities in GW for solar PV and solar thermal are plotted for
the upstream and downstream industries in Figs. 3 and 4. In each
case, results from the lax area-based screen are plotted.
The above figures are subject to uncertainty due to uncertain

Table 1
Global upstream potential for solar PV (PV) and solar thermal (ST), in onshore regions with quality-screened solar resources (three screening methods listed above). Results
listed as capacity potential [GW], as well as capacity factor adjusted energy per year [TWh/y and EJ/y].

Area-based screening Sun-hour-based screening Capacity-factor-based screening

Stringent (low) Lax (high) Stringent (low) Lax (high) Stringent (low) Lax (high)

Capacity PV (GWe) 7.2 9.9 6.9 11.3 6.1 9.7

Capacity ST (GWth) 24.6 40.1 19.7 44.0 17.4 36.9
Energy per year PV (TWhe/y) 15 20 15 23 13 20
Energy per year ST (TWhth/y) 65 98 53 104 49 92
Energy per year PV (EJe/y) 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07
Energy per year ST (EJth/y) 0.23 0.35 0.19 0.38 0.18 0.33

Table 2
Global downstream (refinery) potential for solar PV (PV) and solar thermal (ST) using quality-screened solar resources (three screening methods listed above). Results listed as
capacity potential [GW], as well as capacity factor adjusted energy per year [TWh/y and EJ/y].

Area-based screening Sun-hour-based screening Capacity-factor-based screening

Stringent (low) Lax (high) Stringent (low) Lax (high) Stringent (low) Lax (high)

Capacity PV (GWe) 68.35 91.24 16.69 95.14 19.99 80.79

Capacity ST (GWth) 60.77 87.19 21.35 95.05 21.04 73.96
Energy per year PV (TWhe/y) 121.5 157.1 35.4 170.8 38 142
Energy per year ST (TWhth/y) 152.4 210.1 56.0 213.6 62 184
Energy per year PV (EJe/y) 0.438 0.566 0.127 0.615 0.139 0.511
Energy per year ST (EJth/y) 0.549 0.756 0.202 0.769 0.223 0.661

Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com

J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9 7

Fig. 3. PV and ST potential capacity in upstream production sector under lax area-based solar resource screen.

Fig. 4. PV and ST potential capacity in refining operations under lax area-based solar resource screen.

refining and production energy intensities across the modeled
crude oils. Using the distributions given in Tables S4 and S6, Fig. 5
shows the ranges of PV and solar thermal capacity for the US up-
stream and downstream operations. The box outlines the inter-
quartile range, while the error bars trace the 5%e95% expected
range. Observing country-wide values near 5% and 95% ranges is
unlikely as this would require all production in these modeled
countries achieving that level of performance, which is unlikely.
Modeling uncertainty clearly affects per-bbl production, pro-
cessing, transport intensities. Given interquartile ranges shown in
Fig. 5, a reasonable uncertainty envelope for results for a given
region of country should include values within a factor of 2 in each
direction (e.g., ½ to 2 times the modeled values). Similar uncer-
tainty ranges, though somewhat narrower, are observed for re-
finery intensities (see Table S6). Globally, the uncertainty range
should be significantly smaller due to compensating errors.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
8 J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9
Fig. 5. PV and solar thermal potential in upstream operations for Saudi Arabia and USA
given ranges in OPGEE-derived per-bbl intensities for production and processing.
Ranges in boxes are inter-quartile range (25%e75%) with median marked. Error bars
represent 5% and 95% ranges.
4. Conclusions
From the above assessment, global potential for solar PV range
from 7 to 12 GW in the upstream sector and from 17 to 95 GW in the
refining sector. Global potential for solar thermal ranges from 17 to
44 GW in the upstream sector and 21e95 GW in the refining sector.
These potential capacities show the oil and gas industry could be a
large future consumer of solar energy. As shown above, the un-
certainty ranges are reasonably large, due to significant variability
between the energy intensities of different crude types. We showed
above that a likely uncertainty range is a factor of 2 in each direc-
tion from the central estimate (i.e., from 0.5 to 2 times the central
estimate). This assessment can be combined with other studies of
solar industrial energy use (e.g., [53]).
Future improvements to the model would require use of sub-
country GIS datasets of global oilfield locations, global refinery
locations, and use estimates of sub-country level solar resources.
These results could be paired with field-specific GHG and energy
intensities of particular oil fields and refineries to estimate the
most promising locations. For this application, access to a com-
mercial dataset on global oil operations would almost certainly be
required.
Taken further, remote sensing or computer-vision tools could be
used to estimate the free land area in and around oilfields and re-
fineries, enabling better estimates of the amount of land near a
region that could profitably be used for solar PV or solar thermal
development. Particularly for thermal requirements, this additional
constraint could greatly reduce the amount of solar thermal able to
be used due to comparatively small possible distances of economic
steam or thermal carrier transport. This is doubly true for refineries
in urban regions.
Lastly, economic analysis could also be performed in future
work. While beyond the scope of the current analysis, such an
economic analysis would allow improved insight for industry,
regulators, and analysts. Regional or country-level costs for solar
equipment and installation could be used to estimate the most
cost effective regions in which to expand solar deployment in oil
and gas operations. Such an analysis might also include local
economic conditions such as the cost of power or the local value of
saved gas.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
https://www.tarjomano.com
Acknowledgements
J. Wang was funded for this work by a gift to Stanford University
to Professor A.R. Brandt from GlassPoint Inc.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107.
References
[1] IEA. Key world energy statistics. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2014.
[2] Pinkse J, van den Buuse D. The development and commercialization of solar
PV technology in the oil industry. Energy Policy 2012. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.029/.
[3] Absi Halabi M, Al-Qattan A, Al-Otabi A. Application of solar energy in the oil
industry e current status and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1015/j.rser.2014.11.30.
[4] E. Piedmont, T. Tehada (2010). Solar powered cathodic protection system.
Presented at Corrosion 2010, 14e18th Mar. San Antonio Texas. Paper NACE-
10092.
[5] Palmer D, O’Donnell J, Bernard W. Solar enhanced oil recovery application to
Kuwait’s heavy oil fields. In: Presented at: society of petroleum engineers,
Kuwait oil and gas show and conference; 2015. SPE-175290.
[6] Sandler J, et al. Solar-generated steam for oil recovery: reservoir simulation,
economic analysis and life cycle assessment. In: Presented at: society of pe-
troleum engineers, western regional meeting; 2012. SPE-153806.
[7] Agarwal A, Kovscek A. Solar generated steam for heavy-oil recovery: a coupled
geomechanical and reservoir modeling analysis. In: Presented at: society of
petroleum engineers, SPE western regional & AAPG Pacific section meeting
2013 joint technical conference; 2013. SPE-165329.
[8] Testa D, et al. Concentrating solar power applied to EOR: high temperature
fluid circulation for enhancing the recovery of heavy oil. In: Presented at:
offshore Mediterranean conference; 2015. OMC-2015-457.
[9] Sandler J, et al. Solar-generated steam for oil recovery: reservoir simulation,
economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Energy Convers Manage 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.026.
[10] IOGP. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers: About IOGP,
Accessed September 17th, 2015. URL: http://www.iogp.org/About-IOGP.
[11] IPEICA. Vision, Mission, and Membership Commitment. Accessed September
17th, 2015. URL: http://www.ipieca.org/vision-mission-and-membership-
commitment.
[12] IOGP. environmental performance indicators e 2013 data. report number
2013E. London: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers; December
2014.
[13] IPIECA. Saving energy in the oil and gas industry. London: IPIECA; 2013.
[14] IPIECA. Saving energy in the oil and gas industry. London: IPIECA; 2007.
[15] IPIECA. Energy efficiency: improving energy use from production to con-
sumer. London: IPIECA; June 2012.
[16] BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Supplementary excel worksheet. 2015.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/
statistical-review-of-world-energy/statistical-review-downloads.html.
[17] El-Houjeiri H, et al. Oil Production greenhouse gas emissions estimator OPGEE
v1.1 draft e: user guide & technical documentation. Stanford University; 2015.
https://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/eao/sites/default/files/OPGEE_
documentation_v1.1e.pdf.
[18] El-Houjeiri H, Brandt AR, Duffy JE. Open-source LCA tool for estimating
greenhouse gas emissions from crude oil production using field characteris-
tics. Environ Sci Technol 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es304570m.
[19] Vafi K, Brandt AR. Reproducibility of LCA models of crude oil production.
Environ Sci Technol 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es501847.
[20] Brandt AR, Sun Y, Vafi K. Uncertainty in regional-average petroleum GHG
intensities: countering information gaps with targeted data gathering. Envi-
ron Sci Technol 2015;49(1):679e86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es505376t.
[21] Vafi K, Brandt AR. Uncertainty of oil field GHG emissions resulting from in-
formation gaps: a Monte Carlo approach. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48(17):
10511e81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502107s.
[22] Gordon D, Brandt AR, Bergerson J, Koomey J. Know your oil: creating a global
oil-climate index. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 2015.
[23] EIA. Total Oil Supply (Thousand Barrels Per Day). International Energy Sta-
tistics. URL: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?
tid¼5&pid¼53&aid¼1.
[24] Abella J, Bergerson J. Model to investigate energy and greenhouse gas emis-
sions implications of refining petroleum: Impacts of crude quality and re-
finery configuration. Environ Sci Technol 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es3018682.
[25] Abella J, Motazedi K, Bergerson J. Petroleum refinery life cycle inventory
model (prelim) v1.0: user guide and technical documentation. University of
Calgary; 2015.
[26] Petroleum economist. World energy atlas. 6th ed. London UK: Petroleum
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
J. Wang et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e9
Economist; 2011.
[27] Pennenergy. oil & gas journal 2015 worldwide oilfield production survey.
Publ Oil Gas J 2015. Dec 1, 2014.
[28] Halliburton Inc.. Map: Deepwater Brazil. Accessed March 31 2016, http://
www.halliburton.com/public/solutions/contents/Deep_Water/related_docs/
Brazil%20Deepwater%20Map%20Final%20-%20English.pdf.
[29] Oil and gas concession map. Brazil Offshore Mag 2015. Accessed March 31st,
2016, http://www.offshore-mag.com/content/dam/offshore/print-articles/
volume-75/06/BrazilMap2015062615Ads.pdf.
[30] Mlada S. Operators remain interested in offshore Canada. Offshore Mag Feb
2nd, 2016. Accessed March 31st 2016, http://www.offshore-mag.com/
articles/print/volume-76/issue-2/eastern-canada/operators-remain-
interested-in-offshore-canada.html.
[31] Mushalik M. China's offshore oil and gas production started to peak in 2010.
2015. Accessed March 31st, 2016, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-06-
10/china-s-offshore-cnooc-started-to-peak-in-2010.
[32] Iranian National Offshore Oil Company. Accessed March 31st, 2016. http://
www.iooc.co.ir/.
[33] EIA. Mexico e International Analysis (last updated Sept. 21, 2015). Energy
Information Administration. Accessed March 23rd, 2016. http://www.eia.gov/
beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso¼MEX.
[34] Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. Annual statistical bulletin. Ta-
bles 3.01 to 3.39. 2013. www.nnpcgroup.com.
[35] EIA. Saudi Arabia e Country Analysis. Accessed March 20th, 2016. http://www.
eia.gov/beta/international/analysis_includes/countries_long/Saudi_Arabia/
saudi_arabia.pdf.
[36] Oil & gas journalHorizontal wells find varied applications in Saudi fields. May
8th, 2000. Accessed March 20th, 2016, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/
volume-98/issue-19/drilling-production/horizontal-wells-find-varied-
applications-in-saudi-fields.html.
[37] Obaid N, Kern N. Saudi Arabia's upstream and downstream expansion plans
for the next decade: a Saudi perspective. Center for Strategic and International
Studies; 2005. http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/051004_saudienexpplan.
pdf.
[38] WorldOil. New oilfield discovered in offshore Dubai. February 4th, 2010.
Accessed March 21st, 2016, http://www.worldoil.com/news/2010/2/4/new-
oil-field-discovered-offshore-dubai.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang J, et al., Potential solar energy use in the global petroleum sector, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.107
https://www.tarjomano.com
9
[39] ADIPEC. Offshore reserves to account for 50% of oil production in Abu Dhabi
by 2018, reveals ADIPEC. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference; June 2015. Accessed March 29th, 2016, https://www.adipec.com/
news-home/2015/july/offshore-reserves-to-account-for-50-of-oil-produc-
tion-in-abu-dhabi-by-2018-reveals-adipec/.
[40] DOGGR.. Preliminary annual report of California oil and gas production sta-
tistics. 2013. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/2013/PR03_
PreAnnual_2013.pdf.
[41] Railroad Commission of Texas, State Offshore Crude Oil and Casinghead Gas
Production. Accessed March 29th, 2016. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/
7927/1113.pdf.
[42] Dept. of Natural Resources, Louisiana. Louisiana State Oil Production
(excluding OCS). Accessed March 29th, 2016. http://assets.dnr.la.gov/TAD/
OGTABLES/Table01.htm.
[43] Rueters. Offshore increasingly important to oil industry. July 6th, 2010.
[44] Infield. Global offshore oil and gas outlook. 2013.
[45] PennEnergy. Enhanced oil recovery survey. 2014. Oil & gas journal. 2014.
[46] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. CAPP crude oil forecast: oil
sands development drives steady Canadian oil production growth to 2030.
June 9th, 2014. http://www.capp.ca/media/news-releases/capp-crude-oil-
forecast-oil-sands-development-drives-steady-canadian-oil-production-
growth-to-2030.
[47] CAPP. Statistical handbook for Canada's upstream petroleum industry. Cana-
dian Association of Petroleum Producers; January 2016. Data from Table 3.2a.
[48] Riveros G, Barrios H. Steam injection experiences in heavy and extra-heavy oil
fields. Venezuela: Society of Petroleum Engineers paper SPE-150283; 2011.
[49] Penn Energy Research. Oil & gas journal 2015. Worldwide Refining Survey;
2015.
[50] NREL. Solar Resources by Class and Country. https://en.openei.org/datasets/
dataset/solar-resources-by-class-and-country.
[51] NREL. System Advisor Model (SAM). https://sam.nrel.gov.
[52] (a) EIA. Fuel consumed at refineries. US Energy Information Administration.
URL: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm.(b) EIA.
Refinery Utilization and Capacity US Energy information administration. Url:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_a.htm.
[53] Glueckstern, P. Potential uses of solar energy for seawater desalination.
Desalination 101(1), 11e20.