I can understand using CO2 to enhance production. I would not put it pass
people who worked at the Chevron CO2 recovery plant to pull a fast one me.
However, that being said, I can still picture unstable ground conditions in
Texas and that being done as a band aid on a long term problem.
It would be in the same vein as the Valdez in Alaska, when it ran into
Prince Williams Sound and dump a lot of crude in the water. Exxon had put
forth a plan that said they could contain the oil if something like that
happen. We all saw the plan was full of holes. When some of the people got
tire of watching the people that were suppose to be containing the spill do
nothing and pointed out things that they could be doing, the Exxon lawyers
construed that as people from the state taking charge of cleaning up the
spill and said that Exxon shouldn't be responsible for the clean up because
they were following the directions of the state. To this day, if an oil
spill happens, people have direct orders just to observe and keep their
mouth shut so that the lawyers can't put the blame on the state.
The oil companies do more then pull fast ones and tell tall tales. They are
very sleazy.
I can still see Texas turning into a sink hole. I can just imagine what
would be said about Texas, if it puckers and forms a sinkhole next to its
brown spots.
Also, this does bring out another point. When the Alaska pipeline was built
during the 70's, oil fields in the state were developed. At the same time,
Ander was left alone because the amount of oil it held and how hard it was
to extract if from the ground was not considered cost effective. I just
wonder how high the gas price will have to be to make it cost effective.
Also, I would like to point out if it takes billions of dollars to get the
oil, and Exxon Mobile wants to make 6% profit, how high will the gas that
comes from there be?
I also would like to commend you and Bob for stating your thoughts and
reasoning in a very civil manner.
Jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Younker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:49 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Sinkholes and oil production
> Allow me to comment(underscoring what Bob said) the reason water and CO2
> is pumped into producing formations is to extract MORE oil from from the
> formation, not replace it, enhanced recovery they call it. Jeff, I
> suspect the Texan was telling you a tall tale and later joked with his
> buddies what he told to nosy person. I don't mean any disrespect, but
> hell, they don't pass an opportunity's to pull one on their buddies, the
> rest of the world doesn't stand a chance ;) There have been sinkholes
> attributed to oil production. Generally the cause is "wash out" of an
> area closer to the surface than the collapse of an oil formation several
> thousand feet down. Anyway removing CO2 from the atmosphere and pumping
> into a producing formation will not sequester it. As Bob mention
> porosity is a key feature of producing formations. Sooner or later the
> CO2 will migrate to a well bore and re-enter the atmosphere when the oil
> it associated with it is processed. As Terry mentions locking the Co2 in
> played out capped formations can't be totally safe. Natural Gas stored
> in old salt mines, years old practice, near Hutchison, KS did find a way
> out and cause some fires.
> Doug, N0LKK
> Kansas USA inc.
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
