What if there was a way to keep coal mining jobs in Saskatchewan, continue to produce low-cost electrical power, and extend the production of a substantial portion of Saskatchewan’s oilfields not by decades, but by generations? And in doing so, we could still dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and maybe save some money by reducing our nuclear rollout?
Recent developments from Whitecap Resources showing using CO2 in the Frobisher formation led to initial results of 5x improved production. Not 5%, or 50%, but 5x. That’s 500%. I’m not saying it’ll stay anywhere close to that, but we should be taking a very serious look at this development, especially since most new drilling in southeast Saskatchewan is focused on the Frobisher, part of the Mississippian. While the Bakken was a flash in the pan, the Mississippian has been the mainstay of SE Sask oil production for generations. And this is a generational opportunity, but we will let it slip through our fingers if we shut down our coal-fired power plants.
This is one of the most significant opinion pieces I’ve ever done with regards to energy. It basically puts it all together.
Sounds good, except the part about reducing CO2 emissions. The planet is in a CO2 deficit as it is. We are dangerously close to the point where all plant life on earth will die off. Shouldn’t we be trying to increase CO2 levels on the planet to prevent mass starvation? 🙂
Your problem isn’t with coal or CO2, but with Liberals.
As one famous leftist quipped: no person, no problem.
C02 is part of this discussion so I want to put my 2c in. Are there any pols willing to push themselves away from the trough to listen?
Pols and media push starvation. Plants eat c02 to grow. Pay attention.
People listen to “the media” and vote for stupid pols.
You can’t legislate against or fix stupid.
Whether you are concerned about supposed anthropogenic climate change or not, using CO2 to double the recovery factor of oilfields is of huge benefit. If storing that CO2 underground floats your boat, fine. But it is of enormous benefit for the oil industry.
It is only a benefit to the oil industry because of the C02 BS. Take away the C02 BS and you take away the benefit. Take away the C02 benefit and you kick Turd Jr. and other pols in the -fill in the blank- which is a good thing.
Do you have a problem in basic reading? Injecting CO2 repressurizes oil wells, allowing them to produce a lot MORE oil. This has nothing to do with AGW in any way, shape or form. It’s a benefit to everyone who uses oil. It increases the value of existing, producing wells, thus reducing the need to drill more wells.
CO2 doesn’t work by increasing the reservoir pressure …. CO2 is a miscible flood and works by reducing the viscosity of the remaining oil and I think it also might effect the wettability of the oil ie the oil doesn’t stay stuck to the rock pores.
Look it up to find out for certain but your re-pressurization is nonsense.
And yes I worked for decades in the SE Sask oil patch.
So, we can expect the price of crude to drop?
I’d like to see a real cost/benefit analysis.
How much does the CO2 system cost vs how much extra revenue from increased production?
This should be a quick and simple question, that does not need paragraphs of Enron-style accounting to explain.
Using CO2 can certainly be very beneficial- but validating the AGW fraud in doing so is simply helping weave the rope with which you will be hung.
We can easily do both – use CO2 to generate more hydorcarbons, while calling it out unapologetically for the fraud that it is.
Somewhat related …
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-electric-vehicle-tax-1.7132365
This is a very low amount for the real cost of EVs to the rest of us, but a great start. EV stations cost a fortune, batteries cause fires sometimes, and cause wear-and-tear on existing roads, create issues with the electricity grid and, likely, increased strata/insurance fees. Also, we have paid millions for subsidies in individual taxes. Stratas/neighbours should develop bylaws, as overnight plug-ins are expensive and EVs potentially very dangerous. Firemen can not easily put out the fires!
not only that EV’s dont use gas hence they don’t pay road tax, something the braindead liberals didn’t take into their equation
There is a couple of issues that would need to be addressed.
First, spending a billion or so dollars per unit to convert existing coal plants in carbon capture units will not increase Saskpower’s electricity supply. In fact, it reduces the amount of MWs on each coal unit because the carbon capture process uses energy.
Second, I’m not sure how you’d sell the idea of using billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money to increase private oil companies profits. Unless the oil companies pay a significant portion of the conversion costs, I doubt Saskatchewan taxpayers would be pleased with increasing the public debt without getting an equivalent return on the investment from the oil producers. Especially since a billion-ish dollars could be used to build brand new 300 MW natgas power stations.
There is some research being done into CO2 direct air capture that would not require coal. Waiting for that or other CO2 capture technology for use in enhanced oil recovery might be something to consider.
Direct air CO2 capture has been around for eons. It’s called green plants (and phytoplankton)
Supercritical CO2 pilot aims to make steam turbines obsolete
https://newatlas.com/energy/supercritical-co2-turbines/
Here is something SaskPower should be looking at. We are going to need more CO2. Now if they could only figure out a way to collect CO2…
The obvious question is can any other fluid do the same thing for cheaper? and I haven’t heard it discussed.
Like, say, plain old air?
You obviously never worked in the SE Saskatchewan oil patch if you never heard water floods, miscible floods or solvent floods discussed. There are even fire floods!
Why ask stupid questions about topics you know nothing about when you could just google “enhanced oil recovery techniques” ?
Please try again, the question wasn’t “what other enhanced oil recovery techniques are there?” the question is “are there cheaper alternatives” or if you prefer a more specific question: In terms of cost and efficiency, how does this technique compare to others?
Liquid CO2 under pressure, acts as a solvent and when allowed to de gas, leaves no residue of itself behind, it can be recaptured and used again.
So, CO2 is useful and fewer new rigs, or none at all, will be needed with this method.
Coal is toast, don’t bother yourself with it. CO2 from nat gas will be the source.
Nothing in this article negatively impacts the Greenies or will save coal and oil.
The problem Western Civilization faces has nothing to do with CO2. We should be producing more CO2, not less.
The problem is an utter inability to round up the top 5,000 transnational progressive leaders and summarily execute them. A nuclear weapon targeting Davos while the WEF confab is assembled would also liberate Western Civilization more than almost anything else we could do.
Fully agree – we continuously waste our time and energy debating the best way to do damage control for what those POSs pushed on us years ago. In the meantime, they’re pushing dozens of more destructive agenda items down the line.
Unfortunately these same POSs control the world and have for a looooOOOOOooong time. And they have the best security money can buy.
CO2, golly I wonder where that came from?