Enhanced oil recovery and CO2:ecological aspect?

[DrDu]

I came about a rather discomforting company description (Enhanced oil resources Inc.) which seem to own the claim on a huge CO2 containing geological formation:
http://www.enhancedoilres.com/company.htm
Apparently they plan to exploit this formation which contains an estimated amount of 15 trillion tons of CO2 to use the CO2 to extract oil from nearly empty oil formations (they speak of "enhanced oil recovery" EOR technology) and to separate the helium content.
So, while in other areas people are discussing to store excess CO2 from coal power plants in geological formations, some companies in the US even open existing CO2 formations with the benediction of the DOE. How does that fit together?

 

[Bystander]

From the link, "...estimated by third party engineers to contain up to 15 trillion cubic feet of CO2 in place with potential recoverable reserves of up to 5 trillion cubic feet. " Standard cubic feet, not tons --- works out to around 500 million tons.

 

[Andre]

The feasibility of any of the two methods touches on a banned subject and can't be discussed.

 

[berkeman]

Thread temporarily closed pending moderation.

EDIT -- Thread reopened. Please avoid bringin up climate change, and the thread should be okay.

 

[DrDu]

Thanks bystander, the cubic feet slipped my attention.
I do not want to discuss whether CO2 is responsible for climate change or not. I would like to know something about the economic and geological background of this project.
I wonder what is the reasoning behind opening a natural deposit instead of using e.g. the output of carbon power plants.
As far as I know, the helium price is very low at the moment due to the US selling off their strategic stock. So helium alone can't be the answer.
My second question is about how much of the CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery will end up in the atmosphere and how much stay in the deposits.
Finally, I suppose that these operations need some oficial expertize, I suppose by the DOE in that case. Are these publicly accessible?

 

[Andre]

...My second question is about how much of the CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery will end up in the atmosphere and how much stay in the deposits.
..

That's why it can't be discussed, if this was to be relevant or not.

 

[DrDu]

CO2 bilance is a very important economical factor. I want to understand the economical premises of "enhanced oil recovery" technology.
I think discussion of CO2 bilance is quite independent from the discussion of whether CO2 induces global warming or climate change.

 

[D H]

I wonder what is the reasoning behind opening a natural deposit instead of using e.g. the output of carbon power plants.

Helium.

As far as I know, the helium price is very low at the moment due to the US selling off their strategic stock.

Not for long, though. Helium prices are forecast to jump by a factor of 20, and maybe much more than that, in a few years once the US recoups the costs of its helium storage project. And possibly sooner; the 1996 act that resulted in the current policy is now receiving close scrutiny from both parties.

So helium alone can't be the answer.

Helium is almost inevitably a small part of natural gas and CO₂ deposits. What to do with the natural gas? Simple: Capture and sell it. What to do with the CO₂? Simple: Just let it go into the atmosphere. There is a problem with this simple solution: The EPA is threatening to regulate CO₂ emissions. So, capture and sequester it. That solution costs money instead of making money. So, sell the captured CO₂: make it a profit center rather than a business cost. As the intended use is a form of sequestration, this will avoid entanglement with those pending EPA rules. It makes a lot of sense.

Finally, I suppose that these operations need some oficial expertize, I suppose by the DOE in that case. Are these publicly accessible?

OSHA, certainly. The EPA is going to want to stick their noses involved -- assuming that is that these pending regulations become real and assuming that the incoming Congress doesn't zero out the funding for these EPA plans. DOE? What would make you think that?

 

[DrDu]

This topic is absolutely new to me and I don't know the american agencies involved too well.
Certainly, ecological concerns will not be raised by DEA but if at all by EPA.
Actually, I was interested in Helium producers when I stumbled into the EOR topic.
On the DEA homepage I found this interesting brochure:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/brochures/CO2Brochure_Mar2006.pdf

Here two paragraphs which sound rather amusing once you know what is meant with
"other industrial producers of waste CO2".

"Fossil fuel-fired power plants and other
industrial producers of waste CO2 could find
an attractive business opportunity in seques
tering their greenhouse gas emissions by
selling the waste CO2 to oil and gas field
operators for enhanced recovery. Oil and
gas fields’ capacity for sequestering CO2 is
enormous. One study conducted for DOE
estimated that the global sequestration
capacity in depleted oil and gas fields
equates to 125 years of current worldwide
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power
plants.
As pressure builds to reduce CO2 emissions
amid concerns over postulated climate
change, future CO2 sequestration efforts are
likely to be met with incentives such as fisca
relief or emissions trading credits. That
could help level the playing field between
natural and industrial sources of CO2.
Broadening use of industrial CO2, in turn,
could expand the applicability of CO2
EOR/EGR to other areas of the United
States while “closing the carbon cycle.” A
widespread campaign of CO2 EOR across
the U.S. could ensue, if operators could
obtain CO2 from industrial sources, such as
power plants, at a reasonable cost."

 

[D H]

Here two paragraphs which sound rather amusing once you know what is meant with "other industrial producers of waste CO2".

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why this is so amusing.

 

[Bystander]

Again, stepping "out of bounds." Oil recovery or helium production are acceptable topics, "As pressure builds to reduce CO2 emissions
amid concerns over postulated climate
change, future CO2 sequestration efforts are
likely to be met with incentives ..." is not (sorry about the brief interuption); it is a discussion of quantities to be regulated based on an assumption that "Global Climate Disruption" is a problem.

 

[DrDu]

So what do you guess: How much of the CO2 extracted will end up sequestered in the Oil fields?

 

[Bystander]

"Guess?" You're going to have to come up with "the particulars" on the field --- open & pumped, open & flooded, producing formation geology (sand, sandstone, shale, limestone, fractured, previous stimulus), number of open wells & closed wells --- it's very case specific.

Long term? None of it.

 

[solar_ant]

Well, don’t know what exactly will happen in future, but there are many folks who claim use of CO2 for EOR could be a very big business – look at this post that claims http://powerplantccs.com/blog/2010/10/carbon-dioxide-for-oil-recovery-could-be-a-240-billion-business.html" .

God knows how they came up with a number like that – sounds humungous – but it at least points to the fact that there is significant interest in this domain.

 

[DrClapeyron]

I believe CO2 sequestration is more about enhanced methane producation from coal beds and gas fields than it is about banned topic matter. Having heard a few things from coworkers and acquaintances, CO2 injected into a coal bed will displace methane at high pressure. I'm sure there a lot of brilliant marketing and PR genuises out there who will turn it into something that it is not but for the future CO2 injection is all about natural gas production.