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]

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.