Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chaparral Energy to pipe CO2 to help extract Osage County oil (OK)
Tulsa World ^ | 12/26/12 | Rod Walton

Posted on 12/26/2012 8:44:18 AM PST by 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

(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; energy; fertilizer; globalwarming; oil
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.
1 posted on 12/26/2012 8:44:35 AM PST by T-Bird45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

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


2 posted on 12/26/2012 8:48:45 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


3 posted on 12/26/2012 8:57:30 AM PST by Go_Raiders (The wrong smoke detector might just kill you - http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
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.

4 posted on 12/26/2012 9:02:50 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

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.


5 posted on 12/26/2012 9:24:52 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders

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


6 posted on 12/26/2012 9:31:26 AM PST by munin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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


7 posted on 12/26/2012 9:41:33 AM PST by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
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.

8 posted on 12/27/2012 6:13:25 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45; All
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.


9 posted on 12/27/2012 6:19:21 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: munin

Air has very little CO2. It is mostly nitrogen.

10 posted on 12/27/2012 6:21:15 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
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.
11 posted on 12/27/2012 6:45:12 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Thanks for the link and the illustrations.


12 posted on 12/27/2012 7:21:24 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


13 posted on 12/27/2012 10:14:09 AM PST by Go_Raiders (The wrong smoke detector might just kill you - http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SVTCobra03

Did you ever jump into Sand Creek off the cliff?


14 posted on 12/27/2012 10:25:19 AM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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


15 posted on 12/27/2012 10:28:56 AM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

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.


16 posted on 12/27/2012 11:05:28 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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


17 posted on 12/27/2012 11:09:35 AM PST by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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


18 posted on 12/27/2012 11:36:52 AM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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


19 posted on 12/27/2012 11:38:25 AM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Did you ever jump into Sand Creek off the cliff?

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

20 posted on 12/27/2012 11:41:20 AM PST by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

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


21 posted on 12/27/2012 12:38:55 PM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SVTCobra03
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!

22 posted on 12/27/2012 1:28:39 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
Either or....

FRegards,

23 posted on 12/27/2012 1:29:41 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
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.

24 posted on 12/28/2012 7:20:21 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson