36 comments on The Status of Canadian Oil Production
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
36 comments on The Status of Canadian Oil Production
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Gail, I just bulled ahead inmy answer to you without looking at your links. You have my profound and sincere appology. I sometimes go off a little half-cocked, as i'm sure people on this website have noticed on occassion.
I'm not an expert on this type of recovery-in situ combustion-but I think it has a lot of promise. there are at least two serious questions that this type of production are going to have to answer, besides the cost;
What about the combustion products besides crude, CO2 and carbon monoxide? I know some of the CO2 is going to remain as a miscible solution, but surely some of its going to bubble off. And combustion yeilds othergases that will have to be captured and recycled or sequestered, carbon monoxide being one. Aren't there a bunch of poisonous metals in that stuff, things like arsenic and vandium? God, I wish I'd taken a course or two in chemistry instead of the short stories in Nathaniel Hawthorne in college.
Also, these processes are going to take a whole lot of hydrogen, commonly made from natural gas in chemical plants. How much methane is it going to take per barrel and where do the operators plan to get it?
I know the US Department of Energy did at least one study on in situ combustion of oil to produce some 17 or a
18 gravity oil at Saratoga in Hardin County, Texas on the supra-cap sands, but Mobil Producing of Texas and New Mexico shut it down as uneconomic in the early 1990's. Does anybody know where to find that study online?
Humbled, I remain your most obediant servant,
Bob Ebersole
They used a little natural gas and steam to get the thing started. They did have an energy draw in running the blowers non-stop, thus there were some operating costs not associated with steam injection. I remember gas is compressible, thus you need a pneumatic push to cause the oil to migrate towards the "toe". Forced air combustion has been done before with mixed results, many people abandoned it for steam and VAPEX type solutions.
I have talked to the person who sent me the links about doing a guest post. Maybe we will be able to ask some questions.
That sounds great, I'd be very interested. Frankly , this sounds a little too good to be true.
Where's the hydrogen coming from to decrease th gravity of the crude? How many cubic ft a barrel? How do you make tar unto syncrude that will flow during the cold season. How about some photos and some photos of competing process aolutions ? Can you quote any Keats or Blake so I know you are an estheticially aware person? You know, just the usual Oil Drum Grilling. (sarcanol alert)