The World's Largest GHG Sequestration Project

But, but, but, I thought trying to reduce Canada's ghg output would destroy our economy? It must suck for you global warming deniers that even your revered free market has turned against you on this one.

And CO2 sequestration is more commonly referred to as simply carbon sequestration.

"No page that matched you query (co2 sequestration) were found."

Just because business is playing along with political correctness doesn't make the theory correct. There have been a number of articles of late which point to the solar cycle as the culprit for global warming. Perhaps you AGW folks can explain why Jupiter, Mars and even Pluto is warming up if its indeed man made CO2 that is causing the problem.

I don 't think the $42 million covers the cost of the pipeline.

However, as a working fluid instead of water, it could be used without pipeline in the oil sands perhaps.

I'm not now, and never have been, interested in trying to do anything about CO2 in the atmosphere as it is beyond human control.

But then again, Rube-ert, it must suck to see the revered free market solving problems and producing needed commodities without the iron fist of government telling them how to do it.

But if you think about it (something some of us can actually do), using CO2 in the oil recovery process, and then calling it "carbon sequestration" is really a win-win for the oil people. They get their oil out economically, they continue to have zero effect on the climate, but the utterly bogus "sequestration" claim tends to mute the normal bleating from the Luddites about the industry being oh so destructive of the environment and actually wins them a level of praise from the Gaia cultists. Quite clever, actually.

Mind you, I am a bit curious to know if the engineers have figured a way to get all that CO2 back out in thirty years when "global cooling" becomes the rage again. (And given the solar cycles, things are going to get a lot cooler in a few decades.)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a big part of the worlds economy. Restricting it's use would very definitely hurt everybody and cause major damage.

Yup, can you imagine the monetary losses if governments banned CO2...

Who would want to buy 'flat' beer or a 'rum & coke' made with 'flat' pop...

It must suck for you socialist global warming, or as of late "climate change", stooges that this initiative was developed by industry without it being forced upon by the government.

This is great, I no longer feel obligated to buy a hybrid, I think I'll go for the thirstiest, largest SUV I can buy in celebration!

"...The most promising technology for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) involves the injection of CO2 into the oil reservoir, and the potential for CO2-EOR in the U.S. is increasing continuously with advances in technology. Reservoir modeling, especially for CO2-EOR, has become extremely sophisticated with the increased capabilities of modern computers and with the development of advanced computer codes. The synergism of the advanced technologies allow a far better understanding and control of oil reservoirs, reservoir fluids, and the physics and chemistry of enhanced recovery. CO2-EOR is the “universal” enhanced recovery system, applicable to most reservoirs except the very shallow and the reservoirs with heavier oils, for which thermal technologies are more applicable. DOE estimates that as much as 89 billion bbls of oil could be produced by applying modern and forthcoming advanced CO2-EOR technologies. With more than three decades of experience with the process, companies are becoming more comfortable using CO2-EOR..."

It could called the "Revenge of the Oil Engineers."

somebody over at Leftoid Moonbat HQ should give McClelland a big whup up side the head or a swift kick in the backside.

Its not global warming more you moron, its climate change. How do you expect to fleece the sheep with the Great Lie if the three synaptic junctions you have for a brain can't get on the same page with the rest of us.

Get with it, meathead.

It must suck for you socialist global warming, or as of late "climate change", stooges that this initiative was developed by industry without it being forced upon by the government.

Not at all. Combating climate change will require a co-operative effort from the free market, government and individuals. Now that all three of those groups are moving in the right direction the sane people in the world can safely ignore the increasingly hysterical and irrelevant rantings of the global warming deniers.

I watched a program on TV on this site at Weyburn. The CO2 is piped in from an electrical generation site in North Dakota. I was told (but cannot confirm) that Sask Power was asked to supply Co2 from their site in Estevan but they were not interested in the slightest. I guess crown corps don't like to deal with private industry.

" the sane people in the world can safely ignore the increasingly hysterical and irrelevant rantings of the global warming deniers."

sSpoken like a true warmonger

CanuckInMI: Of course the problem with your hypothesis is that we have not seen an increase in solar output over the last 25 years (the period during which we have been able to make fairly accurate observations). Thus solar is not a sufficient cause.

I note that a number of people like to bring up the phrase "climate change" as part of a "lefty" plot. Are you aware of the document that brought it into the main stream as a term for global warming?

Regards,
John

With supporters like Robert the Dorkasaurus, I have no choice but to be a "global warming denier".

Only a complete fool could fail to notice that global warmers never applaud and say well done! when anyone actually -does- something they've been whinging about, such as the largest CO2 sequestering project in the world. All they ever do is move the goal posts and start in with the next whinge-a-thon.

This is what makes our Robert a Dorkasaurus, and Dr. Fruitfly a prevaricating, propagandizing provocateur.

John, your comment about solar output assumes that global temperature will act synchronously with solar output. I submit you are arguing in advance of the facts.

Does a pot of water boil as soon as you stick it on the stove, or does it take a while? Do copper pots work better than glass?

We don't know how the atmosphere reacts to increased solar input, or how fast.

Furthermore, what we may or may not have seen over the last 25 years is a matter of considerable debate, and by no means settled.

Wonder if Sir Robert was also on the anti-DDT bandwagon, that cost more than a few people their lives.

Now that the UN has reversed their 30 year "consensus" on that it has become safely usable again.

Phantom: If you base your analysis on the science, there is no debate about the fact that we have not seen significant rises in solar output.

However I don't follow your first statement. Are you saying that the earth's temperature will lag behind solar output or are you arguing that the warming on other planets is due to unknown processes that are reacting to the warming from the LIA?

According to Jimmy Carter-era environmentalists, weren't we supposed to be out of oil by now?

A major, F4, tornado hit Elie, Manitoba yesterday, destroying 4 homes in the small prairie community. My wishes for a speedy recovery go out to them. The story in today's Edmonton Journal didn't mention global climate change as the cause, interesting. I'm sure that someone will. If this were the the United States, we can only imagine the uproar about yet another sign of mans' wickedness in causiing such a disaster.

For now, the green hyperbole is silent.

"For now, the green hyperbole is silent."

The green hyperbole is over at cbc.ca, where they have a cheesecake-photo of David Suzuki, upholding the Earth.

If we inject Al Gore's excess CO2 man production should double to around 60 BOPD!!

I suspect Encana is using CO2 because this byproduct gas is cheap, plentiful, and readily available, NOT because they've drunk from the Kyoto koolaid Robert.

Sask Power is the 3rd biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and one of the largest emitters of radioactive polution in Canada.
Since Al Gore released his doomsday film about drought on the prairies and flooding on the coasts Saskatchewan has had above average precipitation every month and below average temperatures except December 06 so maybe the deniers have reason to be skeptical.
I see SGI is donating $250,000 to climate research.
Good waste of money Lorne

AGW/KYOTO = ECO-MARXISM .

The interesting property of CO2 is it's acidity. While it makes it difficult to use due to corrosion, it will bond crude oil and water together, forming a thick emulsion.
This is exactly what oil producers want...

But, but, but, I thought trying to reduce Canada's ghg output would destroy our economy? It must suck for you global warming deniers that even your revered free market has turned against you on this one.
If there was no profit margin it would never be done, just like everything else in the free market. It's also as dangerous as it is expensive. Producing oil using this method doesn't actually sequester much CO2, as most of it is recovered after production...

And CO2 sequestration is more commonly referred to as simply carbon sequestration.
By dim-witted leftists like Robert that know nothing of the process, and think there's little difference between carbon and CO2...

@Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man:

Robert has shown himself to be quite glib. Given that the climatologists backing him up have a track record that's comparable to that of stock-market forecasters (beaten by random forecasts), he'll need all the glibness that he can muster. Thankfully for him, Bay Street analysts have amassed a bag of tricks to this end, ones that will serve him well.

There might even be marriages as a result of this confluence. A greenie married to a Bay Streeter would make for an interesting household.

John Cross, I'm saying two things. First, science does not know what the effect of increased solar input on the atmosphere would be either in temperature change per unit input or in time to change post input. Nobody has ever measured that, they just assume it in computer models. It might take a long time, it might not. Even assuming no solar increase for 25 years, we could be still reacting to an increase more than 25 years ago.

Second, we haven't had an instrument circling the globe measuring solar output for 25 years. Some guys are inferring solar output from satellites which weren't designed to take that measurement, and they argue about it. Some argue in good faith, some probably don't.

Me, I think Mars melting ought to be enough of a sign that solar input might be on the rise, but I'm just a bone cracker.

All of the above not withstanding, you must admit you haven't seen any Greenie groups trumpeting the great success of this carbon sequestration project John. That's because Suzuki and Gore have them out moving the goalposts again.

Who is this McClelland fellow?The village idiot? They are not sequestering anything,they are using a by product of a coal generation station to enhance the recovery of oil from a depleting oil field.He sounds just like someone who would listen to a southern gospel preacher like Al Gore who if he were preaching fire and brimstone, like his friends and relatives do, would be scoffed at by people like McClelland,but as he is preaching not to save your soul but mother earth(that has survived for billions of years without our help)he is somehow suddenly believable.Gore even urges you to put something in the collection plate to pay him for his message.He's got Swaggert,Baker, Hinn and all the other revivalists beat and has trumped them all in fleecing the people and idiots like McClelland are acting like one of the Moonies to help him raise his millions.

Robert (It's the JJJEEEEWWWWSSSSS) McLalaland, exactly WTF does a socialist retard from Hogtown know about producing oil on the Prairies.

you are right. the CO2 flood has nothing to do with suzuki or gore. the CO2 comes from across the border. weyburn is one of the few feilds where it is economical to C02 flood, the good Devonian or Beaverhill Lake pools in Alberta have way higher recovery on water or miscible gas floods, upwards of 60 to 70% already. the little incremental oil recovered from CO2 flood is more than lost in value on corrosion .

Despite what Borat Dion , Bono Suzuki and the Gorecle of Doom think, the engineers and geologists are not rubes. Canada has the most advanced technology in the oil world. you cant just stick CO2 somewhere without consequences. that idiot Dion wouldnt even consider the horsepower or ( frenchy joules) it takes to pressure up atmospheric exhaust gas to 900 psi, or 6200 kPa (frenchy units) .

it aint easy , its expensive , and there often isnt a result. as we used to say , if it were easy we would let girls do it. blather on Mssr. Dion. there aint no izzy money.

to keep Mssr Dions advisors from getting too tied up in reality checks , its about 280 hp per million ft of CO2 flue gas compressed up to miscible pressures.

and its not a sequestering project, CO2 breakthrough is in 4 to 8 months. it comes back and it reinjected. the company wouldnt really be happy if the CO2 was sequestered, it is supposed to increase the mobility of the oil and to do that it has to come back with the oil.

these are publicity stunts. moral corrections.

luckily Apache and Encana are driven by economics not some ecofreak falsehood.

The viability of CO2 injection is questionable. Polymer(plastic) injection is the wave of the future anyway.

BigOil will be figuring out new ways to keep the energy flowing, while leftists finally figure out compressing a dangerous and destructive gas needs a more profitable reason than attempting to "change" the "climate"...

polymer injection? How does that work?

John Cross said:

Of course the problem with your hypothesis is that we have not seen an increase in solar output over the last 25 years (the period during which we have been able to make fairly accurate observations). Thus solar is not a sufficient cause.

Well, actually I think there has been, even over the last 25 years. What are you refering to when you say "solar output"?

Visual, UV, IR? Or electro-magnetic and solar wind?

I see John Cross is already backpeddaling:

"significant rises in solar output"

What about the sun spot cycle?

Further, why are there seasonal variations in the CO2 concentrations as measured at Mona Lau? Is the CO2 producing the seasons?

polymer floods work by injecting a highly viscous layer or front and then pushing it through the pore space. by increasing the viscosity of the displacement fluid there is increased sweep of the pore volume. difficulty is the price and if you get breakthrough by the push medium , usually water, then anything on the other side of the trapped polymer is stopped dead.

well thats what Im told. Im actually a fruitfly genetics guy that just claims to know a little reservoir engineering on the side.

"It is absurd top say that man is more powerful than moon or sun; that he can make the tides of ocean and climate conform to his will"

King Canute, 1020, Southampton, England.

Phantom, you are not correct when you say that we haven't had an instrument circling the globe measuring solar output for 25 years. The ACRIM series of satellites is designed for just that.

Wimpy: In regards to solar output, I was refering to standard Total Solar Irradiance.

In regards to my backpedaling, I was covering myself in case someone wanted to bring up Wilson's work as opposed to Lean's.

I don't follow your point about the CO2 concentrations.

Regards,
John

The CO2 at Weyburn is indeed coming from North Dakota ... there is no one in Canada presently able to get the CO2 coming out of Fort. Mac into a pipeline and into an area where EOR would be useful. Certainly the Fort Mac Oil sands (SAGD) and mining operations would not benefit from pumping CO2 gas underground. At Fort Mac most of the oil is from a form of open pit mining (60 Minutues did an excellent segment on Suncor last fall) or SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drain) where super heated steam is pumped underground to effectively heat/thin the tar to a pumpable liquid. CO2 sequestration is of no benefit in this area. If the gas can be converted to liquid underground caverns to store CO2 could be an option.

FYI the Weyburn field had some serious federal and provincial grant money pumped
into it for this project/experiment. And the CO2 isn't staying underground, it's coming back out with the oil, just not so much as was pumped in ... This is a step in the right direction, but it's not even close to a solution. Way more CO2 is being produced than can ever be used for EOR purposes.

John, the CO2 concentrations fluctuate seasonally, even diurnally. Why are these explained differently from CO2 inducing warming, because clearly these seasonal variations do not cause the seasons, if one tries to employ the same same logic as the AGW people.

I stand corrected.

When CO2 is forced into an existing closed oil field I thought it produced the same recovery results as the water injecting that uses so much H2O. The pressure on the gas at depth is partially responsible for how CO2 can recover oil.

CO2 sequestration is also benefitting organisms that thrive on CO2. Decaying vegetation (carbon) produces CO2, sequestration starts at the tail end of that process but the direction is reversed. Did that make any sense?

My hard drive has crashed since I started collecting info on this.

I know of a few colleagues doing government funded studies on Carbon/CO2 Sequestration (and yes they are interchangeable). It is far from being a proven tool for CO2 emission reduction, as the long-term transport, geochemical alterations and transport are not well understood.

CO2 is miscible in both water and oil. CO2 increases the mobility of oil by reducing the viscosity at depth , it also changes the wettability of the rock. the water mobility is changed as well but not by much, we can pressure up any field with water , but rock characteristics and pore throat constiction limit the recovery. some waterflooded fields are injected with CO2 after with good results, others have had such high recovery before from waterfloods the incremental recovery is not that great for CO2, generally its the mid recovery reservoirs that do best with CO2. the bad ones have breakthru, the good ones have nothing left to give.

economics ,my dear watson, economics.

now what colour was that fruitflys eyes?