Injecting CO2 into oil wells is not real carbon sequestration 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Sam Wells Posted 8:48 am
   24 Aug 2007

   I guess so ...I can buy the argument, since the net effect is more CO2, but isn't it a good thing to pump some CO2 underground if it is economical?  Otherwise, the CO2 from the fertilizer plant would have been released into the atmosphere, right?  Wouldn't it be a good thing if MORE companies pumped their waste CO2 into the ground?  I'm getting mixed signals here.
   We all know that credit and offset programs are a complete farce, worthless paper at best (well that's MY opinion), but we need real reductions ... and face it, we're going to burn up all the oil we can find to the last drop.  Ergo the corollary is that's we shouldn't work-over existing oil and gas wells to maximize their production.  Hoo boy, getting deep here ...
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

2. 

   theBike45 Posted 10:39 am
   24 Aug 2007

   Invalid logic  The fact that the carbon is sequestored when  used to move more oil out of the ground cannot be
   
   diputed. The fact that oil is what is removed has nothing to do with anything - we use oil if we need it, not just because this particular well provided it. For all you know, the oil may be used for lubrication or making plastics, or medicine, etc. none of which emits carbon, if you want to get technical about it. Your argument is fallacious because it conmtends that the oil produced 1) will produce carbon emisions (something you can't know) and 2) that not getting that oil would cause , what? People to ride their bikes? I'm amazed your logic is so flawed, but then, hysterical environmentalists seldom think very clearly  

   Permalink

3. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 12:50 pm
   24 Aug 2007

   So who is to saySo who is to say that the CO2 won't also leak out of the underwater sea wells in addition to pumping the oil?
   Are we going to have Greenpeace activists marching along the bottom of the ocean to check up on how honest oil companies are about dealing with CO2?
   Sounds pretty unlikely to me.

   Permalink

4. 

   Sam Wells Posted 1:33 am
   25 Aug 2007

   Ah, good point!No geologist myself, but the principles of injecting steam, brine, drilling fluids, or even CO2 is well known in the mining industry such as for enhancing oil production.  By re-fracturing the well and increasing pressures at the periphery, more oil can be extracted from the tight sands, salt domes, shale, or whatever substrate.
   But are there fractures and fissures even what is considered "impermeable" underground structures?  The answer is "mostly like well yeah, dude."  
   Engineers in Key West made the assumption that deep well injection of wastewater (as graywater) would be great because of an impermeable layer under the loose sands and karst limestone formations.  Years later, it WAS discovered that graywater was leaking into the environment, sometimes at a considerable distance from the source.  Since freshwater is less dense than saltwater, it could be recorded as flowing from fissures to be recorded on the surface, with elevated enterro-bacteria counts as well (fecal coliform).
   True, some underground structures leak less than others, but like a little puppy dog, Nature tends to leak - everywhere.  How do you think they discovered oil?  Natural seeps, of course!
   
   -sammie
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

5. 

   odograph Posted 1:55 am
   25 Aug 2007

   you know"Enhanced oil recovery" is a general term, of which CO2 is just one technique.
   Is "No enhanced oil recovery" the right title here?
   The three major types of enhanced oil recovery operations are chemical flooding (alkaline flooding or micellar-polymer flooding), miscible displacement (carbon dioxide [CO2] injection or hydrocarbon injection), and thermal recovery (steamflood or in-situ combustion). The optimal application of each type depends on reservoir temperature, pressure, depth, net pay, permeability, residual oil and water saturations, porosity and fluid properties such as oil API gravity and viscosity.
   - Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:04 am
   25 Aug 2007

   Well if you want to play semanticsCurrently the Canadian Alberta Tarsand field is looking towards using either Nuclear or Geothermal to warm up water to do "Enhanced Oil Recovery".
   I wouldn't really consider that terribly green considering the oil they are recovering puts up much more CO2 than "conventional" oil.

   Permalink

7. 

   odograph Posted 3:25 am
   25 Aug 2007

   languageIt's just a question of whether you want to have a rational discussion about (a) oil use, and then (b) co2 injection as a method of oil recovery.
   I, perhaps like some of the other posters above, am confused by a jumble ...
   As other posters have said, it might feel good to say "let's stop oil recovery," but what is that in terms of strategy and attainable (marketable) goals?
   I certainly have argued for efficiency and personal choices to reduce oil consumption.  But at the same time I agree with Sam when he says "face it, we're going to burn up all the oil we can find to the last drop."
   So what's the argument here?  That we should use steam and "micellar-polymer flooding" but not CO2, because CO2 implies sequestration, and we don't think that sequestration would be 100% effective?

   Permalink

8. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 6:11 am
   25 Aug 2007

   Well the arguement isWell the argument is that we don't need to supply an increased incentive to drill more oil.
   Especially when that money could be spent on reducing oil consumption.

   Permalink

9. 

   Sam Wells Posted 7:24 am
   25 Aug 2007

   Who is the "we"Just wanting to jostle your sensibilities, but who is the "we" in your argument.  The free market tends to do what it wants as long as there isn't a law against it.  Could "we" even stop it?  Or how is using CO2 injection for extraction oil any worse than using excess brewery CO2 for greenhouse operations, which are notoriously leaky?  I have no strong opinions, just questions.  /sammie
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

10. 

    odograph Posted 11:24 am
    25 Aug 2007

    weI think we are the ones grappling with CO2 emission limits (by mandate, tax, or traded credits).  If we do that, get something in place, what happens then to this argument that we should inject any of that (limited) CO2 into oil fields?
    I don't know, maybe the thinking in this topic ("no enhanced oil recovery") is that without CO2 emission limits, a ban on "oil recovery" will somehow amount to the same thing.  Or maybe not, because that doesn't really make sense to me.

    Permalink

11. 

    xephemeroptera Posted 11:55 am
    25 Aug 2007

    Is sequestration the best approach?I, like many of you, find the logic of selling "carbon offsets" and sequestering the CO2 into the earth to retrieve oil flawed, for the reasons stated in the article. I'm also not too familiar with the concept of carbon sequestration. I mean, I understand the basics, but with all the hype put aside, it does not sound like a successful long term solution in any way. Besides, the carbon is still present, just not in the atmosphere, and after some time or disturbance, there is always the possibility of it leaking out (I've also heard that people have been choked when such an occurrence has happened, though I read the article a while ago and I'm not too clear on that topic).
    What will be successful in the long term is living a more sustainable lifestyle. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to do so (especially the hummer and private jet owners), and our society tends to prefer quick-fixes (ex: carbon sequestration, carbon offsetting). Cultural change can be done, but with a society as large as ours, it should be pretty difficult.
    Christina
    
    http://freewebs.com/thisonesunrise

    Permalink

12. 

    odograph Posted 1:08 am
    26 Aug 2007

    focusCan't we say that using CO2 for oil recovery would not stop global warming, and neither would banning CO2 for oil recovery stop global warming.
    It is a distraction, and maybe that would be my alternate title.  "CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is a distraction."
    Everything, ultimately, depends on emission limits (so let's keep our eyes on that).

    Permalink

13. 

    nedruod Posted 12:49 pm
    26 Aug 2007

    Oh I disagreeThe sequestration of the CO2 is the same no matter why it's done.  If it wasn't going to be done before  then it's additional and deserving of credit.  As Sam pointed out, oil use is not changing based upon whether you've injected CO2.
    What we really need is a counterbalancing CO2 tax that will tax the use of the oil that comes out.  I assume the logic behind your arguments is that the credits should be nullified because if there was a tax the tax would exceed the credits.
    The problem is 5-1 is less than 5-0 and if people are burning oil I'd rather it be the 5-1 variety.
    Anyhow, long story short, save you're energy and fight for a carbon tax.

    Permalink

14. 

    samircmi Posted 2:53 am
    27 Aug 2007

    We Need Every Tool and We Need To Get Started FASTWe need every single tool at our disposal to address the climate problem. CO2-EOR is one of the lowest-cost near-term opportunities for establishing carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a viable technology  and we can't afford to discard it [1]. Using concentrated industrial CO2 streams for EOR gives us a way to get started understanding how to monitor supercritical CO2 underground, how to measure small leaks, understanding the effects on wellbore cement and start us down the path of making CCS an established technology with a proven industrial experience base.
    The technology for CCS exists, what is needed are mega-scale demonstrations that show that this can work and that we know how to mitigate the risks. Plus, getting the ball rolling with large scale demonstration plants will help to buy down the cost of getting started. CO2-EOR gives us a quick path to this and could tell us whether low-carbon coal plants are a viable option maybe even before China can install another 100GW of conventional coal.
    We don't have a million ways of offsetting gigaton-scale levels of carbon. CCS is one of those ways, and we need to get started as soon as possible establishing the industrial experience base to mitigate the risks involved with deploying a "new" technology on a truly large scale.
    This is not a "quick-fix", this is not a "distraction" - it is one of a handful options we cannot afford to discard. While washington takes its time deciding what to do with carbon prices, cap and trade schemes or whatever you want, we need ways to get started. This is one good way to do that and I would argue we don't have the luxury of simply saying no thank you.
    The production of oil from EOR in this case should not necessarily be viewed as a negative. Would it not be better to increase production in existing fields than to open new ones? With talk of pushing for further easing of drilling restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico and opening ANWR for oil drilling, boosting production from existing fields seems like a preferable alternative.
    As others stated above, eliminating CO2 EOR as a carbon credit does not reduce oil demand. What's more, in an era of unprecedented tight production margins, boosting output from existing fields might help ease supply constraints down the line as well. Given that current drive toward E85 and corn ethanol will not accomplish anything for energy security, climate or air quality, we need to pursue alternatives. As we develop better fuels (or develop better ways of producing existing ones), why not reduce the pressures on the oil market and learn how to decarbonize electricity at the same time?
    We need to get started in a hurry and we don't have a lot of roads to take. We need to pursue all roads aggressively and CO2-EOR might give us a way to establish CCS quickly. We need demonstrations far beyond what Weyburn, In-Salah, Sleipner and other pilot plants have been able to give us thus far. This is critical for establishing the kinds of liability, risk and cost guidelines for CCS that would be necessary to determine if it makes sense. Lets pursue lifestyle change, renewable energy deployment and all the rest, but we can't afford to simply say no to CO2-EOR, and frankly I don't see why we would want to.
    1 R.H. Williams, E.D. Larson, H. Jin (2006) "Synthetic fuels in a world with high oil and carbon prices" 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, 19-22 June 2006

    Permalink

15. 

    merrick Posted 8:43 pm
    16 Aug 2008

    carbon accounting loopholesThebike45, you are right that some of the oil will be used for plastics, medicines, and other non-carbon emitting purposes. But the idea that the oil might not produce carbon emissions is frankly absurd. The quality of the oil will affect how much is made into combustion fuels, but it is certain some of it (in all probability the vast majority) will.
    There are published data for the various uses, and from this it's possible to calculate an average emissions per barrel of oil.
    David Ahlport, the possibility of leakage is the first thing that comes to mind. However, the various studies, including the IPCC, say it is incredibly unlikely.
    Thing is, this is new technology. How would we look for seepage? If we found it how would we stop it?
    Rather like the way the nuclear industry doesn't factor in the cost of maintenance, monitoring and liability for its waste for all eternity, so the carbon-capture projects presume it'll all cost nothing and be safe forever. That's a hell of a gamble, especially when you consider that we have non-carbon emitting options.
    Odogrpah, you ask So what's the argument here?  That we should use steam and "micellar-polymer flooding" but not CO2, because CO2 implies sequestration, and we don't think that sequestration would be 100% effective?
    The argument is partly that it's unsafe as we can't be sure the CO2 will stay sequestered for all time, but mainly that this is being touted as low-carbon when it isn't. The totals for the project should factor in the carbon released from EOR oil that would otherwise have stayed in the ground.
    In Scotland, BP proposed a gas power plant that would have used EOR for its storage. The emissions from the oil would have been around half the amount being sequestered, yet BP were calling it 'carbon-free'.
    It's as disingenous as the Chinese carbon capture plant that's using the CO2 in soft drinks (peoples stomachs are even leakier than oil wells and saline aquifers).
    The carbon-emitting corporations are already treating carbon accounting the way they treat tax accounting.
    
    
    
    Bristling Badger

    Permalink