[Smokin' Joe]

A lot depends on how the numbers are calculated, what is used as a baseline, etc. There is a lot of longer term data to be gathered on the Bakken/Three Forks, and there have been multiple significant upward revisions of the total amount of oil present, and the recoverable reserves as well. None of those revisions involve tertiary recovery methods that I am aware of and that could change the equqation as well. For now, recovery rates are sufficient that tertiary recovery is in the distant future, although I think it is being considered when the well plans are being drawn up.

Heck some of the biggest cheapest coal fields in the world are in north east wyoming. You could turn that coal into electricity and then use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in the neighborhood.

Much of the Wyoming coal is shipped out on unit trains to be used to generate power. The other part of the equation for power generation is water supply.

The Great Plains Coal Gassification Project is one such, the CO2 is currently being pipelined to Canada for tertiary recovery efforts there. North Dakota has significant lignite reserves as well, and is an energy exporter.

Wyoming and Eastern Montana contain quite a bit of coal (and oilfields as well), so yes, the potential exists to recover CO2 and use it relatively locally for oil recovery enhancement.

[ckilmer]

The Great Plains Coal Gassification Project is one such, the CO2 is currently being pipelined to Canada for tertiary recovery efforts there. North Dakota has significant lignite reserves as well, and is an energy exporter.
..................
It may be that coal gassification is better than burning coal for electricity if the plant is sited in Montana, wyoming or ND. Why? It may be that natural gas transports better/cheaper/ via pipeline than electricity via power lines over long distances. I don’t know the details there.