babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Energy Dept: CO2 storage technique in Cdn oil field proves a success

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Energy Dept: CO2 storage technique in Cdn oil field proves a success
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 November 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(Washington) An experimental project in Canada to inject carbon dioxide into oil fields has proven successful, removing 4.5 million tonnes of the heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, while enhancing oil recovery, the US Energy Department said Tuesday.

If the methodology could be applied worldwide, from one-third to one-half of the carbon dioxide emissions that go into the atmosphere could be eliminated over the next century and billions of barrels of additional oil could be recovered, the department said.

The project is a joint effort by the Energy Department, the Canadian government and private industry.

Carbon dioxide is piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, N.D., where it is a by-product from coal gasification, to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan.

"The success of the Weyburn project could have incredible implications on reducing CO2 emissions and increasing America's oil production," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

Bodman, who is visiting the Middle East, said in a statement released by his office that if the process were used in all the oil fields of western Canada, "we would see billions of additional barrels of oil and a reduction of CO2 emissions equivalent to pulling more than 200 million cars off the road for a year."

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 16 November 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The writer of the Ingenuity Gap insists this is the way to go. It would allow 'dirty energy sources' to be brough back. You could catch the co2 from coal for example.
The world may be running short on coal, but there is a ton of coal around.

From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 16 November 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"The success of the Weyburn project could have incredible implications on reducing CO2 emissions and increasing America's oil production," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

Um, wouldn't increasing oil production take away some of the benefits of pulling down all the CO2.

It seems almost as if the US Department of Energy is more interested in increasing America's oil production, rather than improving the CO2 situation. But why?


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 November 2005 11:50 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If we sequester the CO2 in order to increase oil production for combustion processes then it would be one step forward and three back. However if we used that oil to make windmill and solar hotwater heater components then maybe we could make a tripple jump forward.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 17 November 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you sequester all of it, with converters in cars factories and coal power facilities, whats the problem?
From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 17 November 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just some quick estimate from the article. 200 million cars @ 20,000 km/year @ 12litres/100km @ 200 litre/barrel = about one billion barrels of oil that those cars would use. That is how much co2 production they claim to be able to sequester. As a side benefit they can produce billions of additional barrels of oil. Where is the co2 from that going to go when you use it in some co2 producing combustion process?

Another way of looking at it. Oil is about 85% carbon. Burning one kilo of carbon produces about 3.6 kilo of CO2. How are you going to put 3.6 kilo of CO2 in the space that the one kilo of carbon took up under ground?

Mind you there are other variables that could come in play. But a rough analysis suggests that the project manager is just trying to create a warm fuzzy feeling to lull us back to sleep.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 17 November 2005 11:10 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why are we importing Usian industrial waste anyway? If it is a waste product from coal gasification it could be loaded with contaminants such as mercury and dioxine. I hope Sask. has that checked out.

If sequestering was the objective why not bury it in North Dakota where it is produced. Maybe extracting that extra oil was the real motive.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca