Talk:Enhanced oil recovery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
This article has plagerism User:70.74.6.202
- Could you be specific, please? Jens Nielsen 09:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Strike-through text
[edit] more CO2 emissions
"The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2 and recover an additional 130 million barrels (21,000,000 m³) of oil, extending the life of the oil field by 25 years [1]. When combusted, this extra volume of oil will produce nearly 60 million ton CO2, so in this case carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2."
This seems to be too simple. The above comparison is between the combustion of 130 million extra barrels and the combustion of nothing. An appropriate comparison should be between the combustion of the extra barrels and the combustion of the same amount of normally extracted oil. Mghurt (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- ? It says that 60 million tons more CO2 is produced from the additional oil. That 60 millions is the difference between what is produced with CO2 injection and what is produced without it. The actual net difference would be 60 minus 18. I think the paragraph is clear and, as far as I know, correct. TastyCakes (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write the paragraph is incorrect, i just think it is misleading. The CO2 is not produced because of CO2 injection, but because of the intent to combust oil. That intent is not caused by the CO2 injection and therefore the statement carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2. is too simple. You can not simply assume there would be less worldwide combustion of oil without the additional barrels you get via CO2 injection. Those extra barrels might replace barrels that would otherwise be extracted from an other field. You could rewrite the paragraph into something like: When combusted, one barrel, extracted with the help of CO2 injection, causes less net CO2 emissions than a conventionally extracted barrel because of the CO2 left in the field, but because CO2 injection method increases the overall worldwide availability of oil for combustion, there might be increased combustion of oil thus increased overall worldwide CO2 emission in the end. Mghurt (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's a point in there somewhere, but CO2 injection really is a technology aimed at increasing oil production rather than sequestering CO2, at least in this context. What is likely to happen in practice is those extra barrels "created" for human consumption by CO2 injection will increase the supply, which will decrease the cost, which will increase consumption, at least on a small scale. I think you are correct, but I'm not sure it's going to make it less confusing to add this kind of pondering to it. TastyCakes (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The low price elasticity of demand for oil and potential alternative sources like tar sand with increased CO2 emission effects and regenerative energy sources with less emission make it really hard to say anything about increased/decreased CO2 emissions due to extra barrels available via CO2 injection. How about deleting When combusted, this extra volume of oil will produce nearly 60 million ton CO2, so in this case carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2. and For the climate, the CO2 released from the combustion of 240 billion barrels (38,000,000,000 m³) of oil would be on the order of 100 billion tonnes of CO2, equivalent to four times the annual global CO2 emissions. and adding a general comment saying that CO2 emission of the additional barrels is a bit lower than the emissions caused by the same amount of conventional extracted oil due to the CO2 left in the field but the then increased availability of fossil energy sources might increase overall CO2 emission. Mghurt (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok I don't mind if you change it. TastyCakes (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
