<Clean fuel from dirty coal?The Oil DrumPerhaps we need an open thread?>

25 comments on Can we get by with fossil fuels ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on February 28, 2006 - 1:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It depends in part on how it is injected.  If it is below the critical depth where it turns to a liquid under the pressure, then it will likely be absorbed into the oil, thinning it and reducing its adhesion.  The combination will then be pumped from the ground, however it then goes to a refinery, where the different bits are separated and the carbon dioxide can be recovered and sent back for reinjection.

If it is injected as a gas (and there is a current example here) then it stays in the formation displacing, in this case the natural gas, but in other cases the oil, toward the producing well, as the gas flows out from the injection wells.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
plucky underdog on February 28, 2006 - 1:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Heading Out wrote:

> If it is below the critical depth where
> it turns to a liquid under the pressure,
> then it will likely be absorbed into the oil,
> thinning it and reducing its adhesion

First contact miscibility certainly exists, but it's very rare to base an EOR scheme around this mechanism. FCM is very uneconomical of injected gas - you can get excellent results with much more dilute solvents.

> If it is injected as a gas...then it
> stays in the formation displacing...

Gas is pretty mobile stuff - it's perfectly capable of finding its way into a producer by itself if you're careless or unlucky, or if you wait long enough. Why do you think BP needs 7 bcf/d of gas compression at Prudhoe Bay? They sure don't have that much miscible solvent available! Sure, you'll drill & perf the wells to avoid the gas, but it will get through eventually.

And please don't let's give our readership the impression that gas injection - CO2 or otherwise - is anything new. It's being going on for many decades in a large percentage of the world's oilfields, large and small. The new thing is the carbon sequestration angle - and if you're getting your CO2 from flue gas, even $60 oil isn't always going to make it economical.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ender on February 28, 2006 - 2:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The only reason I mentioned it is because of its connection with Clean Coal.  The impression that I get from Clean Coal advocates is that CO2 for EOR is a way of sequestering the CO2 from coal plants thereby reducing emissions.

From the responses

  1. you cannot guarantee that the CO2 is sequestered safely.

  2. As the CO2 is recycled there is not enough CO2 needed for offsetting the huge amounts of CO2 produced from power plants.

Sorry a bit off topic however it does go to the sustainable use of fossil fuels and clearly CO2 for EOR is not going to help.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on February 28, 2006 - 10:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's not what they said.  They actually said that the gas will migrate and exit through a producer (well).  As HO said after the producer wells are shut down if there is a caprock on the field you've got centuries at least.  The fact that the gas can migrate thru the whole field is a good thing, it means most of the void space of the field is available for CO2 storage.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ender on February 28, 2006 - 9:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
TJ - however is this guaranteed sequestration?  It is not really no good if the CO2 just starts bubbling up after a few centuries.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.