Energy Transition: Blue Oil Edition

Guest “Responding to a reader request” by David Middleton

Hat tip to Mike Higton for requesting a deeper dive into “Blue Oil”

Mike was referring to this post of mine from May 18, 2021:

“Courts, customers and Wall Street delivered rebukes to Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell”… Oh my!

In that post, I quoted a statement from Denbury, one of the industry leaders in CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR)…

Chris Kendall, Denbury’s President and CEO, commented, “We are thrilled to continue progress on our Cedar Creek Anticline EOR project in 2021. This will be one of the largest EOR projects ever undertaken in the United States, using 100% industrial-sourced CO2 to recover over 400 million barrels of oil. Additionally, the oil produced will be Scope 3 carbon negative, as the amount of industrial-sourced CO2 that will be permanently injected to produce each barrel of oil will be greater than the combined emissions associated with the development and operation of the field, including the refining and combustion of the finished petroleum products. We believe that this carbon negative oil, which we have labeled “blue oil,” will ultimately be a preferred commodity as it assists end users in reducing their own carbon footprint. Today, approximately 20% of Denbury’s production is blue oil, and we expect that proportion to increase to 25% once the Beaver Creek and Big Sand Draw acquisition closes in March. We are committed to increasing the proportion of industrial-sourced CO2 used in our EOR operations, with the objective of reaching an overall Company Scope 3 carbon negative position by the end of this decade.

“We are also extremely excited about the great potential we see for Denbury to lead in the emerging CCUS industry. Denbury’s extensive, highly reliable, high-capacity CO2 transmission infrastructure is perfectly located in the heart of the Gulf Coast industrial corridor, with significant available capacity and expansion potential. With the final rules on the IRS 45Q tax credit issued in mid-January, the stage is now set for a new era of carbon capture, and we believe that multiple new capture projects could be sanctioned beginning this year. Coupled with over twenty years of experience in designing, building, and operating CO2 transportation, processing, and injection systems, we believe that Denbury is in a strong position to make a significant impact in this emerging and important industry.

“Going forward, we will continue our fundamental focus on safety and operational excellence. As underscored by our decision to move forward with the [Cedar Creek Anticline] EOR development, we will continue to invest in EOR operations, while positioning the Company to be a leader in what we believe will be a high value, high growth CCUS business. We believe that Denbury’s strategic focus and asset base uniquely position us for strong performance through the energy transition.”

Denbury
  • CCS: Carbon capture & storage
  • CCUS: Carbon capture, utilization & storage
  • EOR: Enhanced oil recovery.

Mike’s specific question had to do with whether or not CO2 EOR could actually make US crude oil production “carbon negative.” I don’t think CO2 EOR on its own could accomplish this; however, if coupled with straight up geologic sequestration, I think the US could possibly go full “Blue Oil.”

Before we get to numbers, let’s look into the derivation of “Blue Oil.”

The Colors of Crude Oil

Crude oil comes out of the ground in many colors, from amber to black and occasionally a little greenish.

Color variations of a crude oil column from a single connected reservoir. Courtesy D. McKinney, H. Elshahawi, Shell Oil Co. (ResearchGate)

Oil shows on mud logs usually exhibit a yellow or gold fluorescence.

Fluorescence can be an extremely sensitive indicator of the presence of hydrocarbons in drill cuttings. Sample fluorescence is evaluated in terms of color (ranging from brown to green, gold, blue, yellow or white), intensity and distribution. Fluorescence color may indicate oil gravity; dark colors are suggestive of low API gravity heavy oils, and light colors indicate high API gravity light oils. Following application of a solvent on the samples, hydrocarbon fluorescence will appear to flow and diffuse into the solvent as the oil dissolves. This diffusion is known as cut fluorescence, or more commonly just cut. Under UV light, hydrocarbons may be seen to stream from the rock pores into the surrounding solvent, turning the solvent cloudy.

Schlumberger

Blue fluorescence is generally due to the fluid being either oil-based drilling mud or gas condensate.

On maps, well logs and cross-sections, oil is usually colored green, gas is colored red and water is colored blue.

Fluid contacts. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary

To the best of my knowledge, Denbury is the only company currently using the phrase “blue oil”… But I think I know how it was derived.

Cracking the hydrogen colour code

Although there is no universal naming convention for hydrogen, almost everyone can agree on the fact that the majority of today’s H₂ production is either green, blue or grey. Let’s start with the most beautiful part of the hydrogen rainbow: 

Green hydrogen, simply put, is hydrogen made with renewable electricity via electrolysis. We believe it’s the oil of the 21st century and the only way to decarbonise society’s liquid and gaseous fuel needs. Electrolysers use an electrochemical reaction to split water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen, emitting zero carbon dioxide in the process. Water electrolysis has been widely used since the 1920s, first with alkaline technology (TA) hydrolysers, followed in the 1960s by proton exchange membrane (PEM) systems, and now, our highly-efficient anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolysers. Green hydrogen currently makes up less than 1% of overall hydrogen production, but we’re planning to help change that very soon with scaled-up production of our game-changing AEM technology.

Blue hydrogen is produced mainly from natural gas using a process called steam reforming, which brings together natural gas and heated water in the form of steam. The output is hydrogen and carbon dioxide, with the latter then caught through industrial Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) projects. CCUS projects seek to make blue hydrogen production climate-neutral by moving the captured CO₂ to underground cavities like spent gas and oil reservoirs or finding industrial uses for the captured gas. However, blue hydrogen can perhaps be better described as ‘low-CO₂ hydrogen’ as the steam reforming process doesn’t actually avoid the creation of greenhouse gases.

Grey hydrogen is essentially any hydrogen created from fossil fuels without capturing the greenhouse gases made in the process. This is where things start to get a bit more complicated — depending on the hydrocarbon used and how much carbon dioxide it releases, it can also be known as brown hydrogen or black hydrogen. If it’s made from lignite (brown coal), it’s most likely brown hydrogen, and black hydrogen if it comes from black coal, although some people call any hydrogen made from fossil fuels either black or brown hydrogen. Hydrogen has been made from coal through the process of ‘gasification’ for more than 200 years. Grey hydrogen from steam reformed natural gas without CCUS accounts for around 71% of all hydrogen production today, while coal gasification makes up the majority of the rest.

Enapter

“Blue Oil” is what is referred to as “carbon-negative” oil, an apparent oxymoron. Crude oil is loaded with carbon compounds… It’s a mixture of complex hydrocarbons. However, Denbury’s niche in the oil industry is CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and it appears that when the CO2 comes from industrial sources, the total volume of CO2 injected can exceed “the combined emissions associated with the development and operation of the field, including the refining and combustion of the finished petroleum products.” Since the net CO2 emissions are negative, it is referred to as “carbon-negative,” hence the sobriquet “blue oil.”

Figure 1. “Carbon-negative” oil. (Denbury)

If Denbury’s numbers are accurate, about 25% of their production is “blue oil.”

CO2 and other “greenhouse gas” emissions are categorized into three scopes:

Figure 2. GHG emissions scopes. (EPA)

In the case of oil production, Scopes 1 & 2 are the direct and indirect emissions from exploration and production (E&P) operations. Scope 3 includes the emissions from refining, transportation and ultimate consumption of the finished product. Needless to say, Scope 3 emissions are very difficult to estimate. Denbury’s estimate of 1,100 lbs/bbl is not unreasonable; however the plus/minus is probably very large.

1,100 lbs/bbl ~ 0.5 tonnes of CO2 per barrel of oil. US oil production is currently around 12 million bbl/d. For US crude oil production to be “carbon-neutral,” the US would have to sequester about 6 million tonnes of CO2 per day. It would be awesome if that could all be done through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Unfortunately, there probably aren’t enough economically viable EOR candidates, even with the $35/tonne 45Q tax credit. About 350,000 bbl/d of current US crude oil production employs CO2 EOR. Even if this was tripled, it would only amount to a little over 1/12 of US production. However, there is a lot more pore space in the subsurface than there is in producing and/or depleted oil & gas reservoirs.

Saline aquifers

Saline aquifer formations: Saline aquifer formations represent the best salted sink for storage of CO2 among all geological options due to their enormous storage capacity (Grobe et al. 2009). Recently, estimates of the order of 103 Gt CO2 have been made for the Alberta deep saline basin by accounting for the solubility trapping mechanism (Bachu and Adams 2003). Another example is the injection of the produced CO2 into the Utsira aquifer in the North Sea (Korbøl and Kaddour 1995; Torp and Gale 2004). It is required that the aquifer be saline because this already makes it unsuitable for industrial, agricultural and human purposes (Aydin et al. 2010; Metz et al. 2005).

Ajayi et al., 2019

Assuming that the Scope 1, 2 & 3 CO2 emissions for US oil production are 1,100 lbs/bbl, the annual emissions would be:

Scope 1, 2 & 3 Emissions
                                      1,100lbs/bbl
0.50tonnes/bbl
                              5,987,426tonnes/d@12 million bbl/d
                                        5.99Mt/dMegatonnes per day
                                      2,185MtaMegatonnes per anum

Could the US oil industry reach the point where we were injecting 2,185 Mta of CO2 into saline aquifers? If industry drilled CO2 injection wells in the Gulf of Mexico at a comparable rate to how we drilled oil & gas wells in the first place, within 30 years, we could be injecting 7,000 to 10,305 Mta.

Figure 3. Gulf of Mexico CO2 development scenario. (Meckel, Treviño & Hovorka, 2019)

That’s 31-46 years worth of current Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissions… just in the Gulf of Mexico… Under a development scenario that has already been accomplished. The CO2 storage capacity in the Gulf of Mexico is fracking YUGE. The Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas estimates that the storage capacity just in Texas state offshore waters is 172 Gt (172,000 Mt).

Figure 4. Texas state waters CO2 storage capacity. (Meckel, Treviño & Hovorka, 2019)

As mentioned in the previous post, the States of Louisiana and Texas are already seeking bids for CO2 sequestration (CCS) projects in State waters and onshore State leases.

In September 2020, the Texas GLO received approval to begin the lease development process for CO2 storage projects off Jefferson County (southeastern Texas). In April 2021, the GLO formally opened a RFP process for applications for lease development16 . These recent developments have initiated CO2 storage hub development in the Port Arthur region (Fig. 4). In addition, large corporations have made significant announcements intending to develop the greater Houston area into a low-carbon hub, with perhaps as much as 100 Mta CCS anticipated in the future. Other regions now considering similar hub development include Lake Charles, LA, Corpus Christi, TX, and Brownsville, TX.

Meckel, Bump, Hovorka & Trevino, 2021

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed into law bipartisan legislation giving the Texas Railroad Commission “sole jurisdiction over Class VI Injection Wells and carbon capture, use, and sequestration (“CCUS”) activities in Texas” (regulatory primacy). Louisiana did the same about a year before Texas. By the time industry is ready to start drilling CO2 injection wells, the EPA will be cut out of the regulatory loop, with the Texas Railroad Commission and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources having UIC Class VI primacy.

Whether you like it or not, this is already happening.

On the notion of an “Energy Transition”

This is how S&P Global defines “energy transition”:

S&P Global

That all sounds peachy, but there’s not going to be a transition away from fossil fuels. Denbury frames the phrase “energy transition” quite well.

“Going forward, we will continue our fundamental focus on safety and operational excellence. As underscored by our decision to move forward with the CCA EOR development, we will continue to invest in EOR operations, while positioning the Company to be a leader in what we believe will be a high value, high growth CCUS business. We believe that Denbury’s strategic focus and asset base uniquely position us for strong performance through the energy transition.”

Denbury

The “energy transition” is literally a war on carbon, a war on life itself. It is a political minefield through which industry must navigate.

50 years ago, the industry navigated through a somewhat similar minefield, albeit those mines were actually dangerous.

Was the catalytic converter and the adoption of unleaded gasoline an “energy transition”?
Putting the Clean Air Act on Ice
“You keep using that phrase…”

There has actually never been an “energy transition” of the sort envisioned by S&P Global, Larry Fink, Bill Gates, etc.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bjornlomborg_in-1800-the-average-person-had-access-to-activity-6789548325470314496-yC-S

CCS/CCUS is just another tool on the oil industry’s energy Swiss Army Knife. It’s how we will navigate the “energy transition.” With the US government set to increase the 45Q tax credit to $85/tonne for CCS, the economics of building out the infrastructure and drilling disposal wells actually look fairly decent.

The CATCH Act is sponsored by Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), John Barrasso (R-WY), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), John Hoeven (R-ND) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and is an important complement to The 45Q Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Tax Credit Amendments Act of 2021in the Senate and the Access 45Q Act in the House. These include crucial enhancements to the tax credit, including, among other provisions, a direct pay option and a commence construction deadline extension. The infrastructure provisions in theSCALE Act would help connect carbon capture facilities to and commercialize saline geologic storage of CO2.  

The key components of the CATCH Act are:  

New 45Q Values: Increases the 45Q credit value from $50 to $85 per metric ton for CO2 captured and stored in saline geologic formations and from $35 to $60 per ton for CO2 stored via enhanced oil recovery;   

[…]

CATF

Government will either continue to increase the value of geological disposal of CO2 or they will come to their senses and end the moronic war on fossil fuels… Either way, the oil & gas industry will continue to drill wells, produce oil & gas and make money. So long as the government escalates the war on fossil fuels, we will generate an increasing share of our revenue from CCS/CCUS. It’s a win-win for the oil & gas industry.

Of course, the most beautifully ironic thing here is that CCS/CCUS will have this much effect on Earth’s climate:

A volcano in Mississippi?

Prior to construction of the Green Pipeline from South Louisiana to South Texas, which transports industrial-sourced CO2 to EOR operations in Gulf Coast oil fields, Denbury sourced most of its CO2 from Jackson Dome in Mississippi. Starting with their the acquisition of the Jackson Dome CO2 field in 2001, Denbury quickly became one of the industry leaders in CO2 EOR (Bowman, 2016).

Being a long-time Gulf Coast/Gulf of Mexico geologist/geophysicist, when I see the word “dome”, I think salt dome. So, something on this map looked odd to me… the volcano.

Figure 5. Denbury Gulf Coast operations. (Denbury)

Jackson Dome is a Late Cretaceous igneous intrusion (~101-69 Ma). It appears that back in the Late Cretaceous Period, it may have even formed at least one volcanic island, rimmed by a coral atoll. The magmatic intrusion charged the Jurassic-aged Norphlet, Smackover and Haynesville (Cotton Valley Group) formations with a YUGE volume of CO2 (Dockery et al, 1997). More than 3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of CO2 has been produced from Jackson Dome (Bowman, 2016).

Figure 6. Jackson Dome cross-section (Dockery et al., 1997)

“Here endeth the geology lesson.”

References

Ajayi, T., Gomes, J.S. & Bera, A. A review of CO2 storage in geological formations emphasizing modeling, monitoring and capacity estimation approaches. Pet. Sci. 16, 1028–1063 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-019-0340-8

Bowman, Keith. “The History of Central Mississippi’s Naturally Occurring CO₂ Fields,” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Explorer, March 2016

Dockery III, David T.; John C. Marble; Jack Henderson (1997). “The Jackson Volcano” (PDF). Mississippi Geology18 (3): 33–45

McConnell, J.R. and R. Edwards. 2008.  “Coal burning leaves toxic heavy metal legacy in the Arctic.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. August 18, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803564105.

Meckel, T., Bump, A., Hovorka, S. and Trevino, R. (2021), Carbon capture, utilization, and storage hub development on the Gulf Coast. Greenhouse Gas Sci Technolhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2082

Meckel, T.A., Treviño, R.H., Hovorka, S.D. 2019, What Offshore CCS Will Look Like in The Gulf of Mexico: Perspectives from Texas, presented by R.H. Treviño at the Offshore Technology Conference 2019, GCCC Publication Series #2019-7.

4.8 14 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 2:16 am

What can the Greens possibly have to say against “Blue oil”. We’ll wait and see with baited breath.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 4:00 am

Carbon dioxide is a really great surfactant.
CCS was one of our better ideas.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 29, 2021 8:29 am

CO2 oil recovery enhancement does not rely on any surfactancy. Rather, it adds to the volume of the oil, reduces it’s viscosity, and adds to reservoir pressure near the injector, which improves drive from injector to producer.

CCS was one of our better ideas.

Hope you’re right. If it can be done economically, with the increased reservoir pressure the has yet to be seen from CO2 flooding in those reservoirs not resulting in wellbore and/or reservoir breakouts, then it will be so much cheaper than the source reduction that would come from a carbon tax as large as the CCS payment, that that payment could be reduced.

Scissor
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 5:03 am

Very nice Mr. Middleton!

I’ve worked on various aspects of crude oil, fuels, catalytic converters, CO2 and even unicorn dust for a short stint. Your geological and professional expertise, along with humor, makes for an interesting article.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2021 7:14 pm

Ditto.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 6:04 am

I had spoken to an energy-industry lobbyist that this industry is working on using CO2 recovered from flu gases as a concentrated source of CO2 for algae farming, either as a source of food, animal feed or biofuel.

I was told there is pushback against this because it would allow hydrocarbon fuel power generation to continue. Sad.

BallBounces
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 2:38 am

They hated nuclear; they’ll hate this. It’s not the Earth they love — it’s their agenda.

Disputin
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 5:14 am

Er… “bated”?

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Disputin
June 29, 2021 7:17 am

er,,,’abated’

John Hultquist
Reply to  Disputin
June 29, 2021 7:25 am

Cats bait their breath with cheese.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Disputin
June 29, 2021 7:23 pm

Masterfully bated.

What…?

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 5:30 am

The left are NOT pro-environment – that is just a convenient smokescreen they use to dupe stupid people into supporting them. The left’s objective is clear – the destruction of our society, to make way for a totalitarian state where they rule and look down on the rest of us, who will live like poor slaves, grateful for every crumb dropped down to us by our masters.
 
Just look closely at the actions of the left, and place a 120% discount on their words.

Wake Up!

Regards, Allan

Here is a recent example of the left’s phony Green duplicity:

Convenience Environmentalists – The Canadian Left are not Green – they are Brown – and Full of It. The Dems in the USA are as bad or worse.

On June 23, 2021, Private Member’s Bill C-269 (Andrew Scheer) came up for second reading in the House of Commons.

Bill 269 would have prohibited the deposit of raw sewage into waterways inhabited by fish. The federal government can currently grant exceptions to entities (such as cities (Montreal), municipalities, towns, ocean liners, industries) dumping raw sewage into our waterways.

The second reading is when a Bill is referred to Committee for further study or killed. A vote of 211 to 120 defeated the bill. It is interesting how the vote breaks down by party lines:

The leftist Liberals, BQ and NDP all voted against the Conservative bill..

The BQ, Greens, Liberals, and NDP claim to be ardent environmentalists when climate change, carbon emissions, or pipelines are up for debate. When given the opportunity to prevent environmental damage to our waterways, they are hypocrites who let polluter friends off the hook.

They are limousine liberals, never there for the heavy lifting. Remember that when these actors are pleading for your vote in the next federal election.

They certainly do not represent you or me.

Last edited 1 month ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 6:21 am

We’ll wait and see with baited breath.

Don’t bait that breath, bate it instead!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 8:23 am

Because it’s another unfunded mandate, per bi-partisan borrow and spend sneakiness. It should be paid for with a carbon tax at the same rate, regularly, totally, equitably rebated to every US citizen, except for the sequestration payments. I.e., no tobacco tax honey potting. Since /capita carbon footprint correlates more closely to wealth and income than anything else, low income/wealth folks would be at least partially repaid for AGW caused by the rest of us.

Mr. Middleton, either the scales have fallen from your eyes w.r.t. AGW, or you have a dog in the fight for CCS $ paid for by higher government debt falling on the rest of us. Which? Yes, rhetorical.

And yes, repetitive. As is your CCS pimping, per your company’s valiant attempts to stay afloat, with it’s hedge funders selling out as we speak…

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 10:10 am

Greens object to “blue oil” because it avoids or delays the flagellation of the unbelievers that is required in the name of Gaia.

AndyHce
Reply to  Eric Harpham
June 29, 2021 12:56 pm

A great many don’t care about any results except destroying oil companies.

Editor
June 29, 2021 2:34 am

David concludes the post with, “‘Here endeth the geology lesson.'”

Thanks for the geology lesson, David.

Regards,
Bob

Vincent
June 29, 2021 2:44 am

“There has actually never been an “energy transition” of the sort envisioned by S&P Global, Larry Fink, Bill Gates, etc.”

That’s a good point. The drive towards renewables, motivated by an unjustified scare about the negative effects of CO2 emissions, could eventually result in more efficient energy production from an unlimited source such as the sun, in certain circumstances where the sun shines frequently.

If we’re sensible, we can add such additional sources of energy to the reliable supplies of energy from fossil fuels, and we will all benefit because energy supplies are a basic requirement for all human activity in modern civilizations.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 3:55 am

The pyramids of Egypt are pretty big, but I like your drift.
OK, not Stone Age /pedantry.

Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 5:44 am

“The drive towards renewables, motivated by an unjustified scare about the negative effects of CO2 emissions, could eventually result in more efficient energy production from an unlimited source such as the sun, in certain circumstances where the sun shines frequently.”

To date, that has NOT happened. Instead, our energy grids have been badly compromised by intermittent, distributed solar and wind generation that simply does NOT belong in the grid.

In time, there will be an energy grid disaster caused by wind and solar, and voila, common sense will prevail, and everyone will say “Who could have seen this coming?”

We did, as did other competent professionals – two decades ago.

Last edited 1 month ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Vincent
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 29, 2021 7:46 am

There’s not one over-all solution that works efficiently in all circumstances. Installing solar panels on the roofs of houses is very sensible because that space is not used for any other purpose. It’s essentially a ‘free space’.

In relatively sunny areas, such as Australia, with lots of suburban houses, those ‘free’ spaces should be fully exploited. The ideal situation is to incorporate the solar panels into a flat, sloping roof, during the construction of the house, which reduces the cost of installation. The entire roof should be covered with solar panels in order to maximize the energy production.

All the houses in a ‘modern’ housing estate could be inter-connected via HVDC underground cables which would also be connected to a local battery storage unit, and other long-distance HVDC lines.

Each householder would ‘potentially’ get a revenue from the sale of excess electricity, instead of having to buy electricity from a provider and complain about the price.

That’s a realistic future that the current state of technology could provide.

John Dilks
Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 9:04 am

End result is a very expensive house, when the roof eventually leaks it will be very expensive to repair. Expensive maintenance that many owners will not be able to do themselves nor afford to pay someone to do. To much technology in a home makes it not affordable and not maintainable.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 9:26 am

Great comment, Vincent. It manages to display your abysmal ignorance of both energy production and economics. HVDC to every household? Household PV energy production already disrupts the CA energy system. CA dumps the excess solar electricity at a loss to Mexico and surrounding states.

Vincent
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 29, 2021 7:13 pm

Dave,
Try using your imagination instead of being so negative and insulting.

I’ve been talking about the potential for additional, cheap energy, as technology progresses. I’m not talking about ripping up existing AC power lines and replacing them with HVDC lines in older housing estates.

I’m referring to the potential for an energy-independent, new, modern housing estate, which uses the latest solar technology and battery storage, and incorporates such technology into the original design of the entire estate, which could then result in no electricity charges for the householders during the 40 or 50 year period the solar-panel roofs are designed to last.

If the householder drives an Electric Vehicle, which one would expect, then there would be additional fuel savings, which, over a 50 year period would be very significant.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vincent
June 30, 2021 9:39 am

Oh, boy. 1) HVDC is about 500 to 800 thousand DC volts. Your household service runs about 115 to 230 AC volts. 2) Rooftop solar panels last, at the most, 20 years. 3) There is no existing bulk battery technology that can economically provide for all of a bunch of households’ needs 24/7/365. We could go on, but pie-in-the-sky, non-expert musings are not serious proposals for action.

David A
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 30, 2021 12:44 pm

One possible correction. Current solar panels come with a 25 year warranty to be 92 to 94 percent efficient.

The idea of doing the entire roof is nuts.
There should be exactly ZERO subsidies. If one wishes to do this, and have the least negative impact on the grid, then one should get as close to possible to adequate panels for their own needs and pay for a battery to not be sending useless energy to the grid when the grid least needs it.

Vincent
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 1, 2021 6:15 am

Correction! HVDC is for long distance transmission. The Community Battery storage system would have a connection to an HVDC line from other areas, perhaps thousands of km away. Surplus energy beyond the needs of the housing estate, or the capacity of the battery Storage System, would be converted to HVDC to send elsewhere.

The connection between the houses and the Community Battery system would be whatever works best, whether AC or DC.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 12:19 pm

First off, you are making a sizable increase in the cost of each house, for precious little new energy.
Secondly, you are ignoring the maintenance headaches that such panels are going to cause.
Thirdly, you really do get off on spending other people’s money.

Vincent
Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2021 6:51 am

Most of your above points are incorrect. Whilst it’s true that building a new house with a ‘solar roof’ will increase the initial cost of the house, the energy created will not be ‘precious little’, especially if the entire roof is flat and tilted towards the sun. I’m making a distinction between a ‘solar roof’ and a ‘solar panel’.

In Australia, most solar panel installations rarely cover more that 1/4th of the roof area, and often less. This is due to government regulations to prevent the AC grid system becoming overloaded and to prevent people from profiting from generous feed-in tariffs.

Solar roof tiles do not necessarily require more maintenance than standard roof tiles. If Tesla can be believed, their solar roof tiles are much more durable than standard tiles.

https://www.tesla.com/en_au/solarroof

“Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles and are engineered for all-weather protection. Solar Roof can last longer than an average roof and has been designed to protect your home for decades to come.”

The future scenario I’m trying to describe is a housing estate which is designed to maximize the benefit of solar power by using the entire roof area of each house for energy production, and connecting each house with HVDC cables which are also connected to a ‘Community Battery’ system within the housing estate or nearby.

AndyHce
Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 1:05 pm

So far, nothing done can realistically be described as “sensible”, only grossly wasteful and often destructive.

PCman999
Reply to  Vincent
June 29, 2021 9:49 pm

Sure, for garden lamps, where the solar cells save the cost of running wire, solar is great. But it’s eternally hampered by the low theoretical efficiency possible with solar, that is further cut down by 2/3rds by the night-day cycle, weather and the varying angle of the sun. Give it another decade or 2, however, when Elon and company have made space travel commonplace, and you just might see a true solar revolution, with solar power satellites producing steady power, 24/7/365, beaming it down wherever one wants without worrying about expensive and ugly long distance high voltage power lines. It’ll make so much sense the greens will definitely try to ban it.

Derg
June 29, 2021 3:08 am

Once again, why are we trying to capture CO2?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 3:41 am

Because it is there?

PCman999
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 29, 2021 9:51 pm

Because the subsidies are there! Beat them at their own game.

Dixon
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 4:02 am

Because we can’t convince anyone that it’s water that regulates climate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dixon
June 29, 2021 5:02 am

Yeah, what we really need to do is sequester all the water. Makes equal sense.

Scissor
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 4:42 am

A few months ago, maybe longer than that, an article described an industrial CO2 shortage in the U.S. exacerbated by its usage for vaccine cryogenics.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 6:27 am

In natural gas they aren’t doing this to sequester CO2, they do it because NG comes out of the ground 30% CO2. You have to strip the CO2 before it goes into the pipeline. So they send the CO2 back to the field to keep the pressure up and allow more removal of NG. Redefining this as Carbon Sequestration allows them to get a government subsidy to do what they already do profitably.

I imagine there is a similar scam going on with oil extraction.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 12:05 pm

Drrg: Well in this case it adds a lot oil production to spent development capital

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 12:20 pm

In this case, we capture CO2 because using nitrogen doesn’t work, and using oxygen is too dangerous.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 5:18 pm

Because the sight of it scares Greta?

Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 3:32 am

Glad that you included Dean Wormer, David. The bottom line is that it’s just going to be another colossal waste of our tax money to pointlessly sequester our CO2 without using it for enhanced extraction.

I have no major objection if CCUS is unsubsidized and the oil industry is able to make money using the technology to extract valuable oil from “spent” fields. (Except that wasting all that great plant food is a crying shame).

It’s good that your younger colleagues can keep their jobs though, kind of like Bastiat’s glaziers.

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 4:08 am

Ok we’ll do it for the coral in 2199! 🙂

But I think you are not disputing that this is the oil industry searching for a survival niche doing work that society is irrationally willing to pay for.

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 4:52 am

Thanks for the dialog. You are right about the root cause problem. But pumping CO2 into the ground without getting useful products in return isn’t a solution. (Well, ok if you pump into saline water it will be an aqueous solution).

Carbon capture & sequestration is a tactic for mitigation. I don’t mean mitigation of a highly questionable risk to coral. I mean a business risk mitigation strategy—avoid a carbon tax by giving the impression of buying into the bogus problem statement and presenting yourself as part of the (bogus) solution. I get it, I guy’s gotta eat.

Let’s not lose sight of Bastiat’s lesson on opportunity costs. While your glaziers are living high off the hog, some cobbler pensioner is choosing heat or food.

The solution is sound science and letting markets operate in light of that sound science. And I know you agree with that. I also understand that in an imperfect world oftentimes bad answers are the best answers available.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 5:23 am

…avoid a carbon tax by giving the impression of buying into the bogus problem statement and presenting yourself as part of the (bogus) solution. I get it, I guy’s gotta eat.

Yeah, I like to say, quit buying into the bullshit, but in the end if you have to get on your knees and …. Well then like you said, you get it, you have to eat.

Marc
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 4:26 am

David- if you think the attached chart of DEN’s stock price versus the Majors is impressive, just check out the chart of DNRRW. That’s a publicly traded warrant giving you the right to purchase DEN at just over $35. Spoiler Alert- it traded for $1 in November and had a recent high of $50. Somebody really believes in the future of “Blue Oil”.

Phil Rae
June 29, 2021 3:43 am

Yet another great article full of the kind of common sense that is in short supply these days, David.

I just wish you could get your information in front of a larger audience or, better yet, be an advisor & spokesperson for the energy industry in the next Trump White House.

Phil Rae
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 9:42 am

Having worked all my life in the same industry, I can understand that perfectly, David.

But, hey, a lot of folks on this planet, and this site in particular, would love to have someone who knows their $hit from Shinola to provide the administration with sound advice on energy policy. We could probably crowdfund you to make up the difference👍😃

Thanks again for all your great contributions on this site.

June 29, 2021 3:50 am

Oil industry win win.
Political parasites zero.zero.

Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 4:27 am

David,
I have sadly come to accept that the oil and gas industry has had to respond to the hysterics who are currently shaping the public discussion with their religious beliefs; so I won’t waste your time arguing that CCS is unnecessary! Just as the bankers were forced by DC politicians to make loans to people who were unqualified to blow up the housing bubble, I wonder if the FF industry will be on the hook when it becomes generally recognized that CO2 is a beneficial, trace gas and the basis for ALL lif on Earth.
Will the ‘carbon’ sequestered be easily recoverable, or will it be easier to fire up the cement industry with extra nuclear power to produce the Magic Gas needed to get us to 800 or 1,000ppm? My tomatoes are very concerned that idiots are trying to rob them of the very gas they need to thrive, and they asked me to check if they can perhaps be registered to vote since them are obviously smarter that most alarmists!

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 6:00 am

Any thoughts on whether dry rock geothermal is another use of CO2 recovered from fuel combustion?

The go-to way of doing this is water injection. Ideally, all of the water injected would be recovered, but a portion of it seeps into the deep rock formation and doesn’t come back. Favorable geothermal sites are in dry areas such as the western US.

If CO2 is injected into a geothermal energy well, one expects most of it to return in heated form to power some manner of energy cycle to turn a generator. But if a portion is lost into the rock formation, could that be a safe form to sequester it?

June 29, 2021 4:30 am

A very nice piece of work, thank you David.

Yooper
June 29, 2021 4:47 am

Am I understanding this correctly: Denbury is getting paid to move CO2 from one hole in the ground, Jackson Dome, just so they can put it into another hole in the ground in offshore Texas? And get paid to do it?

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 6:38 am

I have known petroleum engineers for decades that have worked with carbon dioxide, production and transport, so they obviously know all about it. The Gulf petroleum reserve has also been around for a similar length of time. Competition there, remove the oil? Also is carbon dioxide more likely to leak, probably not, but accidents occur.Might make an interesting rock there mixed with sea water. National Geographic among others, has hysteria over the “excess” nutrients from the Mississippi River, dead Gulf sort of thing, but it is seasonal, and turning out to be what divers and shrimpers already knew, caused somewhat of a shift from bottom to pelagic dwellers, actually evidence that it increased production for some, like snapper.

It might more logical to use the reserve for oil, anyway you cover this well, but I wonder what the permitting process will be since it has now been declared toxic. So many poorly thought out solutions run into each other.
 https://kfgo.com/2021/06/23/venture-global-can-build-louisiana-carbon-capture-after-getting-permits/    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2082

I found this comment somewhere related to Chevron who is interested in Denbury, notice the word commercial. “To advance a lower-carbon future, we are focused on cost efficiently lowering our carbon intensity, increasing renewables and offsets in support of our business, and investing in low-carbon technologies that enable commercial solutions.”

Geoff Sherrington
June 29, 2021 4:52 am

Crazy, just crazy.
First, do the science on the possible harm to mankind of CO2.
Has not been done yet. Speculation without proof is not good enough.
Second, do the politics of stonewalling future nuclear.
Use France as a living example.
Third, do some honest, inclusive economics to finally show the horrible high costs of misnamed “renewables”.
Correctly conclude that nations like USA require fossil and nuclear fuels that pre-retardation era were super electricity sources.
Finally return qualified, experienced professionals to key positions for future energy planning and identification of the current rogues and imposters requiring elimination from positions of influence.
Who can object to this common sense – and why? Geoff S

John Garrett
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 29, 2021 6:14 am

…because we live in what H.L. Mencken accurately called, “A commonwealth of morons.”

You are, of course, correct. This whole Thermaggedon/mass hysteria thing is completely irrational and bordering on the insane.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Garrett
June 29, 2021 11:13 am

Spencer’s 2nd Law: “More than half of adults have IQs below 100.”

When they depend on ‘know-nothing word smiths’ to provide them with their ‘facts,’ it is unlikely that they will make decisions that are actually in their best interests.

AndyHce
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 29, 2021 1:20 pm

Even the Catholic Church disagrees with you. Bringing back indulgences!

fretslider
June 29, 2021 4:57 am

The only energy transition on the horizon for the stout yeomen of England is one of going from having power on demand to having no power at all, or being rationed via smart meters etc.

This is the [new] reality. And nothing will be allowed to get in the way of it – almost….

GB News criticised for platforming ‘dangerous climate change deniers’

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/26/gb-news-criticised-for-platforming-dangerous-climate-change-deniers

Yes indeed, Matt Ridley and Andrew Montfort got onto the telly, hurrah for a change. One of the spearheads in the anti GB News campaign is DeSmog Blog….

Within the first week, the channel’s presenters have already interviewed two commentators associated with the UK’s main climate science denial group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). 

Hereditary Tory peer Matt Ridley, an adviser to the group, came on to say that higher levels of carbon dioxide were “greening” the earth in “all environments”, including rainforests and arid regions — a common trope that is often used to play down the seriousness of climate change.

https://www.desmog.com/2021/06/21/analysis-we-watched-gb-news-first-week-of-climate-coverage-and-ouch/

This was followed up by the Independent (The Guardian with even more hangups than Channel 4)

GB News is letting the British public down with its sceptical climate crisis coverage

Britons are smart – they know the climate crisis is real, happening, and demands a serious response. Until the channel recognises this, it will be stuck on the fringes, where its science-denying guests remain

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/gb-news-andrew-neil-climate-change-b1873921.html

When the energy transition comes it will make the blues look positively rosy. For now, at least there is one independent voice on the airwaves.

PS

When did published scientific papers become ‘common tropes’?

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Loren C. Wilson
June 29, 2021 5:03 am

Figure 2 fails to mention the greatest greenhouse gas. Curious.

DHR
June 29, 2021 5:24 am

So Denbury is using geologic CO2, not combustion-sourced CO2? If so, how could that possibly be considered a means to reduce overall emissions of CO2?

Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 5:29 am

Trojan horse alert. To whatever extent oil companies piggy back onto the “carbon” madness, the longer the madness will continue. CCUS, unless economically viable without subsidies is a gross, and dangerous market manipulation by the government.

Scissor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 7:27 am

It’s worse. We’ve got a massive string of Trojan horses running about all at once, and madness now is apparently in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, politicians still justify borrowing to support “jobs created,” but recently they’ve begun justifying it because it allows the government to send out “substantial” good paying checks.

At the same time, the net effect being that people are payed not to work while jobs go unfilled because of a lack of people willing to fill them.

Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 6:32 am

We don’t need “blue oil”, or pink with purple polka dotted oil. What we need is cheap oil, or as cheap as possible. Let the market decide, not the carbon madness.

Scissor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 8:42 am

I always had a soft spot in my heart for “Black Gold, Texas Tea.”

vboring
June 29, 2021 6:52 am

If you are looking for a cheap source of industrial CO2, Net Power plants look like a good option. They turn gas into electricity and concentrated CO2 already at pipeline pressure.

At current/proposed CCS subsidy levels, they’ll be able to give the electricity away and still make money.

https://netpower.com/

Tom Abbott
June 29, 2021 6:56 am

From the article: “Whether you like it or not, this [CO2 sequestration] is already happening.”

It seems rather pointless, considering CO2 is a benign gas (until proven otherwise) essential for life on Earth.

But I guess there is lots of money to be made doing pointless things.

John Hultquist
June 29, 2021 7:27 am

The “Zero point Zero” bit always gives me a chuckle. Nice start to the day.

Thanks for an informative post.
John

Editor
June 29, 2021 8:19 am

“Either way, the oil & gas industry will continue to drill wells, produce oil & gas and make money”

Yep, WTI is over $73 today and gas is $3.80.

Exxon is up ~60% and Devon is up 84% since January, life is good.

One of my investing rules, since the 1980s, is to always buy Exxon in the 30s, unless it just split. The rule has never failed me and made me a lot of money. My last purchase was 3/16/2020 for $36.895.

dgp
June 29, 2021 8:19 am

Not even a thought of the potential consequences to what injecting all that CO2 underground could be.

dgp
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 8:33 am

There’s some mention of protecting drinking water, but not much else. These are the same people that claimed fracking caused earthquakes and the water from peoples kitchen sink to catch fire.

And here they are talking about injecting Gt of CO2 and they seem strangely incurious as to potential impacts. I suspect that CO2 held under pressure is going to have some consequences. I’m also concerned about CO2 increasing the acidity of groundwater.

Gary Pearse
June 29, 2021 9:53 am

The innovativeness and vitality of the oil and gas industry seems boundless! ‘Blue Oil’ I love it. Compare this to the childlike thinking going into the Green New Deal that has gripped the muddled linear imaginations of global politicos, activists, asterisked PhD academics and ideologically lobotomized institutions.

Indeed ‘Blue Oil’ totally replaces the vacuous GND at a comparatively infinitesimal cost to society. The ICE car becomes the greenest transportation possible. Wow! Every mile our carbon and more has already been captured for us.

Any estimates of what this will add on to gasoline prices?

AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
June 29, 2021 1:35 pm

With the power to create debt at will, who needs tax revenue?

Clyde Spencer
June 29, 2021 10:59 am

Electrolysers use an electrochemical reaction to split water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen, emitting zero carbon dioxide in the process.

It is true that zero CO2 is emitted in the process. However, there is considerable CO2 emitted in the building of the infrastructure, production, pressurization, and transportation of the hydrogen. More importantly, the “electrochemical reaction” is energy intensive and, to be economically viable, the plants will have to operate 24/7, even if the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Considerable energy is derived from the oxidation of carbon in the use of fossil fuels. Thus, carbon dioxide is produced as a by-product, along with water. In a hydrogen-based energy economy, the CO2 will be replaced with H2O. Thus, one can expect the relative humidity to increase, particularly in commuter corridors, making heat more oppressive. What’s worse, in cold climates, one can probably expect increased icing of roads, with increased accidents and loss of life. [There are alternative scenarios, involving increased use of Winter salt, but that means more energy-consuming mining, degradation of pavement and cars, and damage to surrounding vegetation and ground water contamination.]

It seems to me that those proposing “energy transitions” haven’t considered the whole picture, or done end-to-end cost analyses.

AndyHce
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 29, 2021 1:37 pm

It certainly isn’t about cost analyses.

RelPerm
June 29, 2021 12:16 pm

“…and it appears that when the CO2 comes from industrial sources…”

This one little phrase provides insight into the whole blue oil scam. Where does the oil industry get CO2 for EOR? From already sequestered source! Ha ha ha, fooling the greenies with a CO2 sequestration shell game.

Where are they going to get the CO2 for Beaver Creek and Big Sand Draw? It will be from reservoirs as the La Barge Platform which contain CO2 naturally or from big CO2 floods in late life going to final stage blowdown (Rangely or Bairoil).

These oil companies make big tax break bucks from recycling CO2 and call it sequestration and throw on a cute enviro “blue oil” brand to keep their tax breaks active.

June 29, 2021 12:31 pm

Talking of happy endings – can’t help feeling for Jurgen Klinsmann in the BBC commentary box (after England’s second goal against Germany) – love and peace!

reaction not klinsmann 7.PNG
AndyHce
June 29, 2021 12:55 pm

And what will be the ultimate result of this insanity? A great deal of real wealth will be squandered to enrich the bank accounts of the favored few. The differences between those who have much and those who have little will continue to grow, protected and enforced by the might of government guns.

Steve Z
June 29, 2021 1:05 pm

Enhanced Oil Recovery using concentrated pressurized CO2 has been around for decades. While it reduces the net CO2 emissions for producing and refining the oil, it does not make the oil completely “carbon-negative”.

For example, if the produced oil has a specific gravity of 0.85 (35 API), and is assumed to be 85% carbon atoms by weight, 1 barrel of oil will weigh 297.5 lb and contain 253 lb of carbon atoms. Burning 12 lb of carbon atoms produced 44 lb of CO2, so that 1 barrel of oil containing 253 lb of carbon atoms would produce 253 * 44 / 12 = 928 lb CO2.

Denbury claims that they inject 1,700 lb of CO2 per barrel recovered. But one barrel of volume is about 5.61 cubic feet. In order for 1,700 lb of CO2 to displace 5.61 cubic feet of oil, the CO2 remaining in the ground would have a density of 302.8 lb/ft3 (about 5 times that of liquid water). If the CO2 was at a temperature of (for example) 100 F, at such a density the CO2 would have to be compressed to about 41,300 psi, or about 2,800 times atmospheric pressure.

The reality is that CO2 is injected under some pressure, but more likely in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 psi (slightly higher than the pressure of oil underground), and the CO2 partially dissolves in the oil, causing the oil to expand. When the oil reaches the surface at lower pressure (where the solubility of CO2 is lower), the CO2 passes back into the gas phase, along with dissolved light hydrocarbon gases such as methane, ethane, propane, and butanes.

The gas phase is captured, then separated into CO2 (which is re-compressed and recycled into the ground), natural gas, and liquid propane and butanes (LPG fuel). The net makeup CO2 injected (to replace CO2 left in the ground) is much less than the 928 lb CO2 per barrel emitted by combustion of the oil. Also, some energy must be expended to run the CO2 compressors, so any CO2 emissions from the fuel used to run the compressors need to be figured into the net emissions.

MikeHig
Reply to  Steve Z
June 29, 2021 3:33 pm

According to operating experience on the Weyburn-Midale project, injection of one ton of CO2 increases oil production by about 3 barrels. So Denbury’s figure looks conservative or perhaps they are dealing with different reservoir characteristics.

Gary Pearse
June 29, 2021 1:46 pm

David you are the best. The innovativeness of the petroleum industry is astounding (I know the EOR part already existed). Blue Oil!

I’m not sure many of your commentators understood the widest implications of this. Blue Oil is the perfect replacement (with future dev along the Gulf reservoirs, etc, for the Green New Deal) and at a comparatively tiny cost. It meets all the requirements and caveats of the Paris Accord. Not only can we keep our much more economical internal combustion cars and trucks, but with Blue Oil, more than offsetting our emmissions paid in advance, it is (all-in, renewables, mining, concrete etc, etc.) greener than the electric car and the little car owner doesn’t have to subsidize wealthy EV owners.

The climate worriers won’t be happy free enterprise, and the petroleum industry in particular found a
superior, cheap efficient replacement for the GND. Climateer friends. I does have one small drawback. There will be no need for a centrally planned management.

H.R.
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 29, 2021 2:05 pm

Gary wrote in part:
“[…] Not only can we keep our much more economical internal combustion cars and trucks, but with Blue Oil, more than offsetting our emmissions paid in advance, […]

[…] There will be no need for a centrally planned management.”
.
.
That’s all true, and for those reasons, Blue Oil will be banned. It would totally derail the planned One World Feudal Lord/Serf progressive utopia they’ve worked so hard to bring about.

Can’t have that, now, can we?

MikeHig
June 29, 2021 3:23 pm

David,
Thanks for another excellent post. There does seem to be considerable potential, both for direct sequestration and with EOR as a valuable adjunct.
This makes it likely, in my view, that a market will emerge in “Sequestration Certificates” much like the one in “zero-carbon” electricity. So oil companies will be able to claim their oil is “blue” provided they have sequestered the appropriate tonnage of CO2 or bought certificates from a company that has.
After reading that excerpt in your earlier post, I mentioned blue oil on the Bishop Hill blog and one of the commentors (AK) drew my attention to a CO2 EOR project in southern Saskatchewan. The wiki write-up says:
“During its life, the Weyburn and Midale fields combined are expected to produce at least 220 million additional barrels of incremental oil, through miscible or near-miscible displacement with CO2, from a fields that have already produced over 500 million barrels (79,000,000 m3) since discovery in 1954.”
Those extra barrels are worth about $11 bn at $50 per barrel – serious money, especially as all of the pre-CO2 infrastructure will have been amortised long ago.
The EOR phase has been running since 2000, bringing CO2 from a synfuel plant via a 300 km pipeline.
Now if those payments for sequestration were to be retrospective…….

It does seem to be a bit of a fairytale solution to the false problem of CO2 emissions: paying the oil companies to dispose of CO2, possibly in a way that enhances their production. At the same time we can carry on using their “blue” products with the comforting thought that we are helping to “save the planet”. I jest but there’s that saying about many a true word….
It’s going to be very interesting to see how this develops – and what will be the response of the greens and alarmists.

James F. Evans
June 29, 2021 7:45 pm

Any evidence of oil or natural gas in the interior of Mississippi?

Possibly around the vicinity of the Jackson dome?

Michael S. Kelly
June 29, 2021 8:06 pm

A lot of gems in this post, Mr. Middleton – kudos, once again. The first was in one of the references, citing “renewable energy sources” of the future, such as wind, solar, and…lithium-ion batteries[?][!]. That doesn’t even deserve a comment.

The one biggy was the goal of permanently storing 2,185 million tonnes of CO2 per year. When it comes to nuclear energy, the entire amount of waste generated in the world to date is about 250,000 tonnes – and much of that wouldn’t be “waste” if Jimmy Carter hadn’t forbade the US from reprocessing. Most of the waste is denser than lead, itself 1.1342 tonnes/m^3. So we have at most 220,420 m^3 of nuclear waste. The Apollo/Saturn era Vehicle Assembly Building’s volume is 3,687,883 m^3. We could warehouse 16.7 times the waste we already have accumulated in just that one building (prompt criticality accidents disregarded – it’s just a sense of proportion thing).

The one capper of the post, to me, was the graph titled “There never has been an energy transition.” It projects that by 2100,wind and solar will produce about the same amount of energy as “traditional biomass” did in the year 1800. And the Left intends to get rid of everything except wind and solar well before 2100.

So if we’re all good kids, by New Year’s 2100, we’ll be able to party like it’s 1799!

E. Martin
July 7, 2021 6:34 am

But,but.. hasn’t it been shown that even if we stop ALL of our co2 emissions from entering the atmosphere, it will only have a very tiny effect on any theoretical temperature increase? There seems to be no reason to waste money burying it!

%d bloggers like this: