[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - "...industry should focus on existing ones using traditional EOR methods". Again a very improper statement in that it implies the industry hasn't been vigorously employing EOR techniques for decades...which it has.

First, as far as tertiary recovery, yes they do increase URR. There is a long history of successful projects. And they have produced a small increase in URR and, more importantly, and a well documented VERY SMALL increase in production rates compared to the primary recovery phase. Which is why they focus on URR (and don't mention the many decades it would take to recover that additional oil) and ignore what this forum is all about: production rate...not URR. Just like those shills at Shell Oil et al you're trying to snow folks with HYPOTHETICAL numbers. Shell Oil has been using EOR in the US for over 30 years...where are the documented examples?

Here are a variety of snipits that indicate what EOR has and continues to add to US oil production:

In the US there are 114 active CO2 injection projects that are recovering about 100 million bbl of oil per year. In Texas there are 11,000 permitted CO2 wells. The state encourages EOR by reducing the production tax 50%.
In the US EOR production peaked at 270 MILLION BBLS OF OIL per year in the 90's and still contributes about 225 million bbls per year.
Just in the last 30 years EOR in the US has recovered over 7 BILLION BBLS OF OIL.

The known EOR methods are recovering about 1/4 of a BILLION BBLS OF OIL today from fields where it is applicable. The industry is applying well established techniques in every US oil field where it is economic to do with the current high oil price. There's no need to speculate how much EOR would add to US oil production rates: it has been very well established already. Yes...there is an upside to utilizing EOR techniques. As we've already been doing for decades.

[Subjectivist]

Rockman, is tjere such a thing as post tertiary "quatrary?" Production methods to get out even more after the tertiary methods have been run through the resevoir?

[dolanbaker]

I suppose you could always mine out the rock and wash the remaining residue out of it, or just burn it!

[Graeme]

ROCKMAN, I like your response but I want to push this topic a little further by posting a few links that I found on this subject. You're the expert so perhaps you can tell me (and other interested parties) what references you know about or can find that are better than mine.

Opportunities for Using Anthropogenic CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage

Oil displacement mechanisms of viscoelastic polymers in enhanced oil recovery (EOR): a review

Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits

A new solvent-based enhanced heavy oil recovery method: Cyclic production with continuous solvent injection

[rockdoc123]

Let me jump in for Rockman who can add his own views:

It doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, diagenetic in reefs, anthropogenic or whatever. It actually has limited uses as has been shown over the past several decades. The chemistry in the reservoir/oil system has to be appropriate. I remember making a discovery of 13 TCF once, unfortunately it was 80% CO2 and our only economic option was to start a fizzy drinks plant. Not a silver bullet by any stretch.

Polymer floods have been ongoing for decades. The chemistry changes but the limiting factor is getting the polymer to where you want it in a reservoir. Often the problems with reservoirs has nada to do with the oil rheological properties but more to do with the reservoir permeability. Polymers aren't much use if you can't get them to the oil. Definitely not a solution for very many fields but has applications and has been tested.

Solvent based heavy oil recovery method: Shell has been fiddling with this for years in Alberta as a pilot project. Hasn't seemed to have worked and is all dependent on the miscibility issue.

And as Rockman points out the article on Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits seems to assume we haven't been doing this for the past several decades.

One thing I would point out is that there is lots of technology out there to deal with oil properties (wax, low viscosity, low energy, wetting preference etc.) but often the problem in reservoirs has to do with the rock. When you think about it even in heavily drilled fields with vertical wells the amount of subsurface sampling is sparse unless you are dealing with a homogeneous reservoir. Homogeneous reservoirs are not a problem....they have likely all been subject to some form of water or water and gas injection for some time. The problem is in inhomogeneous reservoirs. How do you predict the path of injected fluids? This has been a big problem for the SAGD projects in Alberta to date and those reservoirs are actually pretty good.

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - Doc gave a pretty thorough answer so I'll just toss in a few bits

You will glad to know in Texas they are building a $400 million pipeline to haul CO2 from the second largest source (a coal-fired power plant) in the entire US to an oil field where it will be injected into an old oil field. Not sure how much is for EOR and how much purely sequestration.

And to clear up some confusion: secondary and tertiary EOR methods aren't specific and different technologies. The first time a reservoir has some method applies (polymer water flood, CO2, etc) is a secondary recovery EOR effort. If another method is used later (the third or "tertiary" production phase) we're attempting to a different EOR method a second time. In theory there could be a quaternary effort. But remember after the initial EOR then less oil left to recover and that's the oil that couldn't be produced by the first EOR method.

[StarvingLion]

These old timers around here crack me up. Lets face it, the geologists, petroleum engineers, and petroleum chemists haven't got a clue about EOR going forward because the oil and gas industry has bet the farm on nanotechnology now. What does a geologist like Rockhead know about quantum mechanics (which is a basic starting point on correct approximations for instrumentation and computational analysis of nanotech experiments)? Ans: Nothing. Neither does Carnot know anything about nanotech. How can his chemical engineer dinosaurs or himself evaluate anything coming down the road for EOR?

Nobody around here can even make an educated guess on peak oil or the alternatives simply because they are totally clueless about nanotechnology.

Its the blind leading the blind.

[dolanbaker]

Are you saying that a nanotech filter that will extract oil from water will save the day?
Fine, but don't forget the costs involved in flushing thousands of litres of water through the reservoir to get just one or two litres of oil.

Bottom line, if it costs more to get it out of the ground than it can sell for, it stays in the ground.

[ROCKMAN]

donlan - “…the oil and gas industry has bet the farm on nanotechnology now.” What an utterly bizarre statement. I know thousands of folks in the oil patch and I don’t know one person involved with any nano tech. In fact, I don’t think many are familiar with the concept. And I’m VP Operations and Production who gets called on by countless salesmen and not one has ever pitched nano tech.

It always amazing to run into folks who think they completely understand a situation when in reality they understand very little. But I do agree I know nothing about the potential of nano tech to improve oil recovery. So for now I’ll just stick with the tech that’s currently responsible for virtually 100% of all EOR efforts.

[dolanbaker]

donlan - “…the oil and gas industry has bet the farm on nanotechnology now.” What an utterly bizarre statement. .

I think that you've misread my post.

[Synapsid]

dolanbaker,

Either he has, or he's commenting to you on StarvingLion's statement. It would be charitable to suspect the latter but I find this confusing too.

Dealing with Texans...

[dolanbaker]

dolanbaker,

Either he has, or he's commenting to you on StarvingLion's statement. It would be charitable to suspect the latter but I find this confusing too.

Dealing with Texans...

I expect it's the latter too, nanotech sounds crazy as well.

[Outsailing]

Nobody around here can even make al an educated guess on peak oil or the alternatives simply because they are totally clueless about nanotechnology.

Its the blind leading the blind.

So can you explain this wonderful technology to us lay people? It seems to me that others have brought up some obvious points, such as mining oil and gas formations the same way that coal is mined, washing the oil and gas out of the rock, or grinding it up to release the oil and gas, might be expensive but is certainly possible.

So what does a nanotechnology do, and if it is such a good thing, why do you appear to be the only one who has heard of it?

[Subjectivist]

Nobody around here can even make al an educated guess on peak oil or the alternatives simply because they are totally clueless about nanotechnology.

Its the blind leading the blind.

So can you explain this wonderful technology to us lay people? It seems to me that others have brought up some obvious points, such as mining oil and gas formations the same way that coal is mined, washing the oil and gas out of the rock, or grinding it up to release the oil and gas, might be expensive but is certainly possible.

So what does a nanotechnology do, and if it is such a good thing, why do you appear to be the only one who has heard of it?

It sounds as if he is refering to molecular filter technology, basically the filter will pass H2O molecules but not petroleum. You pump the high water cut fluid from a watered out well through the filter and the oil remnent stays on the pump side. You skim off th oil and pump the clean water back down an injection well.

[StarvingLion]

Here is a teaser:

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/aec/mission.php

The Advanced Energy Consortium will facilitate pre-competitive research in micro- and nanotechnology materials and sensors that have the potential to create a positive and disruptive change in the recovery of petroleum and gas from new and existing reservoirs.

The consortium's primary goal is to develop intelligent subsurface micro and nanosensors that can be injected into oil and gas reservoirs to help characterize the space in three dimensions and improve the recovery of existing and new hydrocarbon resources. By leveraging existing surface infrastructure, the technology will minimize environmental impact. The consortium also believes that there is near term potential to increase the recovery rate in existing reservoirs by exploiting the unique chemical and physical properties of materials at the nano scale.

Now an article and interview:

http://earthsky.org/earth/jay-kipper-an ... production

[Graeme]

The Stunning Key That Could Unlock 160 Billion Barrels of Oil Trapped Underneath America

It is estimated that there are 160 billion barrels of oil still trapped underneath this country in what are considered depleted oil fields. That's a tremendous amount of oil given that America uses about seven billion barrels of it each year. In fact, if we could only find the key to unlock this trapped oil we could extend fleeting our reserves by more than 22 years.

That's why it probably comes as a surprise to learn that we've already found the key we need to unlock this oil. That key is none other than discarded carbon dioxide, with the primary source of this practically prized greenhouse gas coming from none other than coal emissions. It's a stunning turn of events to say the least.

fool

[Tanada]

The Stunning Key That Could Unlock 160 Billion Barrels of Oil Trapped Underneath America

It is estimated that there are 160 billion barrels of oil still trapped underneath this country in what are considered depleted oil fields. That's a tremendous amount of oil given that America uses about seven billion barrels of it each year. In fact, if we could only find the key to unlock this trapped oil we could extend fleeting our reserves by more than 22 years.

That's why it probably comes as a surprise to learn that we've already found the key we need to unlock this oil. That key is none other than discarded carbon dioxide, with the primary source of this practically prized greenhouse gas coming from none other than coal emissions. It's a stunning turn of events to say the least.

fool

If the USA produced all of its consumption domestically AND it recovered all 160 Billion/bbl cited producible with CO2 injection that would supply the USA for 22 years. If we still imported half our oil it would last 44 years, assuming we did not increase our consumption beyond 20 MM/bbl/d AND the world could sell us 10 MM/bbl/d at a price we could afford to pay.

Yes 160 Billion/bbl is a lot of oil, but even if this worked as easily as portrayed it is no panacea, it is just one more incremental improvement that ekes out our civilization a few more years down the road.

[vtsnowedin]

The Stunning Key That Could Unlock 160 Billion Barrels of Oil Trapped Underneath America
.....
........
Yes 160 Billion/bbl is a lot of oil, but even if this worked as easily as portrayed it is no panacea, it is just one more incremental improvement that ekes out our civilization a few more years down the road.

I would not call 22 to 44 years a few. Consider how much technology has advanced sense 1972 and what it might be by 2060. We will certainly have better alternatives in 2060 then we have today. There is of course that little problem of population overshoot we will had to deal with by then.

[ROCKMAN]

And one more time let me explain clearly how much NEW production could be developed by any of the EOR methods: not a whole f*cking lot. LOL. How stupid do you think we are? What company is going to be operating a field with X million bbls of oil that could profitably recovered by EOR and didn't do it? It's as if these EOR cornies have no idea how many tens of thousands of fields have had EOR methods applied. We have over 300,000 stripper wells in this country and guess where many are producing...EOR projects.

Yeah, CO2 is a great EOR technique. But that don't mean sh*t if you don't have access to affordable volumes. And it is rarely the case in the vast majority of fields where it could help. And don't waste your time thinking of ways to generate CO2 profitablly: where it could be done it's already been done.

Bottom line: the EOR cornies have no clue of the reality of the situation.

[sparky]

.
A side comment ,dolabanker is on something about the mining (not) and burning (yes)

I have a hunch that , as a rule of thumb ,any crude bearing rock which can sustain combustion is worth looking at
if the material doesn't ,extraction is probably a waste of time .
I will add this to my very personal standard of conventional oil being ,
under normal condition , "a liquid which float on water"