Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization & Sequestration Technical Section

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

No replies to my question here or to any of my questions in other discussions indicates that there is no valid reason to store CO2.

Which makes SRMS not valid.  Most issues of CO2 storage (beyond its false justification) can be treated only by reservoir modeling.  Redefinition of common words indicates inability.  SRMS and PRMS are both incompetent, because they do not use any valid statistical or probabilistic method to treat uncertainty, and the definitions make no sense (they actually define the value of all reserves as 0 - see Reserves Definitions).  How to robustly quantify uncertainty using any model is described with examples at Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Modeling - P10 P50 P90 and at SensorPx - A Simple Component of Probabilistic History Matching, Forecasting and Optimization.

.I believe that we are the world leaders in this subject and know far more about it than any "climate scientist".  It is absolutely impossible to calculate a global average temperature from sparse periodic temperature measurements.  That simple fact invalidates almost all literature by "climate scientists" claiming global warming.  All that literature is also invalid because there no valid substantiation of any such claims in any publication.  We are also world-leading experts on that subject.  I have personally refuted a large number of false claims regarding reservoir modeling in very many public discussions, using the scientific method to prove it through example, mostly here on the old Simtig and in the Reservoir group and on LinkedIn.  That is also demonstrated throughout our company website.

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

Brian,

If it's answers you're looking for, as opposed to letting steam out, I'd be glad to give it a try. In exchange it would be good practice to start a thread for every 1-2 questions instead of piling them up so answers become doorstoppers (and people stop reading them). How about global average temperatures? Would you like people to comment on your statement that it's impossible to compute such a thing?

Mind that when you write "climate scientists", you seem to personalize science and focus on the people that generate and validate ideas, as well as their motives. This is redolent of the scholastic principle of "he said it himself" (him being Aristotle), which kept haunting science more or less until Descartes said "screw you, old man, it's not who says something, but the method they use to reach their conclusion"; to rephrase another philosopher, "scientist is as science does". Since scientific method is applied to climate, then we speak of climate science. Whoever tries their best at it and submits to the humbling rigors of peer review and independent validation, well, they are scientists alright to me.

Looking forward to a heated, and doubtless man-made (sorry, anthropogenic), discussion,

No replies to my question here or to any of my questions in other discussions indicates that there is no valid reason to store CO2.

Which makes SRMS not valid.  Most issues of CO2 storage (beyond its false justification) can be treated only by reservoir modeling.  Redefinition of common words indicates inability.  SRMS and PRMS are both incompetent, because they do not use any valid statistical or probabilistic method to treat uncertainty, and the definitions make no sense (they actually define the value of all reserves as 0 - see Reserves Definitions).  How to robustly quantify uncertainty using any model is described with examples at Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Modeling - P10 P50 P90 and at SensorPx - A Simple Component of Probabilistic History Matching, Forecasting and Optimization.

.I believe that we are the world leaders in this subject and know far more about it than any "climate scientist".  It is absolutely impossible to calculate a global average temperature from sparse periodic temperature measurements.  That simple fact invalidates almost all literature by "climate scientists" claiming global warming.  All that literature is also invalid because there no valid substantiation of any such claims in any publication.  We are also world-leading experts on that subject.  I have personally refuted a large number of false claims regarding reservoir modeling in very many public discussions, using the scientific method to prove it through example, mostly here on the old Simtig and in the Reservoir group and on LinkedIn.  That is also demonstrated throughout our company website.

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

If anyone harbors thoughts that CO₂ is driving climate look at the plot below. Notice the diurnal increase in solar flux precedes the temperature maximum for the day by 2 hours. Now this time plot could prove the negative that solar energy does not drive temperature if the increase in temperature preceded the increase in solar flux. The ice core data from Vostok as analyzed By Professor Ian Clark shows the increase in ice core temperature proxy precedes the increase in trapped CO2 concentration by 800 to 1000 years, yet people promoting the AGW theory  have hijacked that data to claim the opposite. See the attached document proving this claim.

Now you all know that while correlation is a necessary condition to prove a cause and effect relationship between these two variables, it is not a sufficient condition. So the scientific process requires that scientists look beyond the correlation to establish that a change is solar flux does cause earth temperature to increase. Using the scientific method, we have to prove there is no other forcings that are not included in the time plot below are causing temperature to change. So for example we can analyze the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere on the night side of earth to see if it is different than the CO₂ concentration on the daytime side of earth. If the two concentrations are the same we can eliminate CO₂ as what is driving temperature change, but that still does not prove that sunlight causes the earth to warm.

To prove that we need to apply all the existing science related to radiant heat transfer and thermodynamics to establish a 'theory' that the power of the sun is driving climate. At this point in the scientific method of discovery it remains a 'theory' that can be challenged by any scientists who reevaluates my data, which I openly provide to him.

This is the scientific method related to the AGW theory has been prevented by the bullies peddling the AGW. The science behind the AGW theory has never been tested by the normal process of scientific discovery. People who collected and manipulated the raw data  have refused to release their raw data for any scientist who wants to reevaluate it and their conclusions.

I do not agree with Steven Merritt that the SPE is not an appropriate place to evaluate AGW science.

Brian,

If it's answers you're looking for, as opposed to letting steam out, I'd be glad to give it a try. In exchange it would be good practice to start a thread for every 1-2 questions instead of piling them up so answers become doorstoppers (and people stop reading them). How about global average temperatures? Would you like people to comment on your statement that it's impossible to compute such a thing?

Mind that when you write "climate scientists", you seem to personalize science and focus on the people that generate and validate ideas, as well as their motives. This is redolent of the scholastic principle of "he said it himself" (him being Aristotle), which kept haunting science more or less until Descartes said "screw you, old man, it's not who says something, but the method they use to reach their conclusion"; to rephrase another philosopher, "scientist is as science does". Since scientific method is applied to climate, then we speak of climate science. Whoever tries their best at it and submits to the humbling rigors of peer review and independent validation, well, they are scientists alright to me.

Looking forward to a heated, and doubtless man-made (sorry, anthropogenic), discussion,

No replies to my question here or to any of my questions in other discussions indicates that there is no valid reason to store CO2.

Which makes SRMS not valid.  Most issues of CO2 storage (beyond its false justification) can be treated only by reservoir modeling.  Redefinition of common words indicates inability.  SRMS and PRMS are both incompetent, because they do not use any valid statistical or probabilistic method to treat uncertainty, and the definitions make no sense (they actually define the value of all reserves as 0 - see Reserves Definitions).  How to robustly quantify uncertainty using any model is described with examples at Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Modeling - P10 P50 P90 and at SensorPx - A Simple Component of Probabilistic History Matching, Forecasting and Optimization.

.I believe that we are the world leaders in this subject and know far more about it than any "climate scientist".  It is absolutely impossible to calculate a global average temperature from sparse periodic temperature measurements.  That simple fact invalidates almost all literature by "climate scientists" claiming global warming.  All that literature is also invalid because there no valid substantiation of any such claims in any publication.  We are also world-leading experts on that subject.  I have personally refuted a large number of false claims regarding reservoir modeling in very many public discussions, using the scientific method to prove it through example, mostly here on the old Simtig and in the Reservoir group and on LinkedIn.  That is also demonstrated throughout our company website.

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

If anyone harbors thoughts that CO₂ is driving climate look at the plot below. Notice the diurnal increase in solar flux precedes the temperature maximum for the day by 2 hours. Now this time plot could prove the negative that solar energy does not drive temperature if the increase in temperature preceded the increase in solar flux. The ice core data from Vostok as analyzed By Professor Ian Clark shows the increase in ice core temperature proxy precedes the increase in trapped CO2 concentration by 800 to 1000 years, yet people promoting the AGW theory  have hijacked that data to claim the opposite. See the attached document proving this claim.

Now you all know that while correlation is a necessary condition to prove a cause and effect relationship between these two variables, it is not a sufficient condition. So the scientific process requires that scientists look beyond the correlation to establish that a change is solar flux does cause earth temperature to increase. Using the scientific method, we have to prove there is no other forcings that are not included in the time plot below are causing temperature to change. So for example we can analyze the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere on the night side of earth to see if it is different than the CO₂ concentration on the daytime side of earth. If the two concentrations are the same we can eliminate CO₂ as what is driving temperature change, but that still does not prove that sunlight causes the earth to warm.

To prove that we need to apply all the existing science related to radiant heat transfer and thermodynamics to establish a 'theory' that the power of the sun is driving climate. At this point in the scientific method of discovery it remains a 'theory' that can be challenged by any scientists who reevaluates my data, which I openly provide to him.

This is the scientific method related to the AGW theory has been prevented by the bullies peddling the AGW. The science behind the AGW theory has never been tested by the normal process of scientific discovery. People who collected and manipulated the raw data  have refused to release their raw data for any scientist who wants to reevaluate it and their conclusions.

I do not agree with Steven Merritt that the SPE is not an appropriate place to evaluate AGW science.

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable -  which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils.  Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) CO2 flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that – it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2.  Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil.  And, if anyone believes that it’s important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered.  If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood).  Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency.  Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if you’re going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian