Chaparral Energy to pipe CO2 to help extract Osage County oil (OK)

Tulsa World ^ | 12/26/12 | Rod Walton

[T-Bird45]

Winding from Coffeyville, Kan. to Burbank, Okla., is a pipeline project that maybe even Al Gore could love.

Chaparral Energy Inc. is building a line that will move carbon dioxide to help with enhanced oil recovery at the historic North Burbank field in Osage County. The project, due for completion early next year, initially will pipe about 23 million cubic feet of CO2 captured from a Coffeyville fertilizer plant.

"This is a very green operation," Chaparral CEO Mark Fischer said. "For the life of that (fertilizer) plant, the CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere."

That, of course, is what Gore says is causing the planet to overheat.

But Chaparral will put the CO2 back into the ground as it uses the gas to recover oil from the mature fields that were once the province of industry legends such as a Marland Oil, Skelly and Phillips Petroleum Co. The 68-mile, 8-inch diameter pipeline will run from a compressor station at a fertilizer plant owned by a subsidiary of CVR Energy Inc. to the North Burbank site.

More at link

[T-Bird45]

This oilfield is nearly 90 years old but will still be an asset for oil production for some time to come thanks to this investment re-using a by-product of agricultural fertilizer production. Thankfully, the writer does not accept AGW as gospel or settled science.

[T-Bird45]

Ping — thought you might find this interesting. Hope your Christmas was great!

[Go_Raiders]

About six months ago I realized that this is the end game in putting aside objections to both carbon dioxide and energy exploration. Once a viable technique has been developed to frack using CO2 on a mass scale, then there can be no remaining arguments against turning the US into the world’s largest energy producer.

[DTogo]

Why is pumping CO2 into the ground such a great idea?

On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.

[T-Bird45]

A few minutes of web research should explain the difference between putting CO2 into an oil-producing formation about 3000’ deep and a lake in Africa that has become carbonated due to volcanic activity. Your research should also show that scientists placed a method to resolve this problem in 2001.

[munin]

I hope that most people understand that co2 are air sans oxygen

[SVTCobra03]

I grew up in Bartlesville and spent a lot time exploring Osage Hills State Park.

[thackney]

to frack using CO2

Why would you think that fracturing using CO2 is a good idea?

Liquid is used to carry the sand. The sand is necessary to hold open the cracks after the fracturing fluid is removed. The fracturing fluid must be removed to allow the oil/gas to flow back out the well head.

Your method, if it could even work, does not sequester the CO2. It would come back out before the production would start. Methods of CO2 flood as described in this article have been used successfully in Texas for many years. CO2 flood leaves the CO2 in the reservoir.

[thackney]

For those that want to learn more about the technology:

Carbon Dioxide
Enhanced Oil Recovery
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EP/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf

It is already used in several locations.

[thackney]

Air has very little CO2. It is mostly nitrogen.

[Smokin' Joe]

The same geological seals which kept the oil and gas in the formation will confine the CO2. However, the re-pressurization of the reservoir will help displace and produce the oil and gas remaining in the reservoir rock. Because CO2 is inert, the process works. The Great Plains Synfuels project has been pipelining CO2 to Canada for enhanced oil recovery for years.

[T-Bird45]

Thanks for the link and the illustrations.

[Go_Raiders]

1. Liquid CO2 would carry sand just as easily as any other liquid.
2. CO2 can’t contaminate groundwater.
3. CO2 can be easily separated from the nat gas and reused.
4. Process would use far less water and produce far less liquid waste.

[Osage Orange]

Did you ever jump into Sand Creek off the cliff?

[Osage Orange]

I live in Osage country....and there’s quite a bit of drilling going on...of late.

[T-Bird45]

Sorry, should have pinged you, too. I’m a former OS resident, graduated from Fairfax in 1973, mom passed in 2007 so I’ve not really spent any time there recently.

[dennisw]

If you represented a volume of air with a 10,000 seat football stadium, CO2 molecules would be in only 3 seats.

[Osage Orange]

No worries....you don’t know me. And how could you know I live in Osage Country?

[Osage Orange]

Good Gawd...what will the tree’s breathe????

[SVTCobra03]

Did you ever jump into Sand Creek off the cliff?

No, but I camped out on Sand Creek as a Boy Scout.

[T-Bird45]

Thought I’d seen you make reference to it before but I may just be operating from your screen name.

[Osage Orange]

Ah, yes the B.S. Camp...on Sand Creek. Yes, that's a bit downstream from Osage Hills State Park.

Anyway...there's a bluff on the creek at O.H.S.P. that my oldest kid and I jumped off long time ago now...Twas fun!

[Osage Orange]

Either or....

FRegards,

[thackney]

Liquid CO2 would carry sand just as easily as any other liquid.

You may want to learn a little more about C02 and the temperature/pressure required to stay at a liquid.

Sending freezing liquid, even if you could keep it from solidifying, into a Petroleum reservoir would thicken the hydrocarbons limiting the flow of the CO2. If you do start at a liquid phase on the ground, the initial cracking would enlarge the volume, creating pressure drop and solidifying the CO2 stopping the growth of the cracks, which is the whole point of fracturing process. Water is used for this method because of the very low compressible property of the fluid.

2. CO2 can’t contaminate groundwater.

Neither does hydraulic fracturing. The contamination cases have all been linked to casing failures. Those would result in contamination regardless of fracturing methods.

3. CO2 can be easily separated from the nat gas and reused.

There is significant expense in doing so. I've been part of the design team for such facilities. And you have accomplished nothing to appease the global warming crowd as you have not sequestered the CO2.

4. Process would use far less water and produce far less liquid waste.

Since item one makes it all unworkable, that is a mute point. And also your claimed method only uses a more difficult fluid to handle and maintain, the problem is more complicated.