Blue Oil

[Mikehig]

While this is not an alternative fuel; it is an adaptation of how fuels are currently produced so seems appropriate for this forum.

“Blue Oil” is the tag given to oil which is claimed to be carbon-negative.

The oil industry has used CO2 to enhance oil recovery for decades. Now they are promoting the fact that this also locks away the CO2 so they talk of CCUS: Carbon Capture USE and Sequestration. One example is Denbury Oil:
"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 labelled “blue oil,” will ultimately be a preferred commodity as it assists end users in reducing their own carbon footprint.””

Carbon-negative oil! It will be fascinating to see how this develops. For the oil companies it could be a godsend: they could get credits/payment for sequestering CO2; recovery from their oil reserves (those that are amenable) could increase; existing infrastructure would be more productive; demand for exploration would be less. Their public image would be transformed for actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere while continuing to provide energy for the world.

[anonymous-user]

Also known as "The most expensive oil ever extracted"


Not to mention there is no long term evidence on the stabilty and security of such schemes.


And to be actually carbon negative, the entire process and all the energy consumed, including getting the CO2, has to be included. And i'm somewhat sceptical that you can caputure, compress, transport, and pump CO2 down into a well without some faily intensive energy consumption overheads.


But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

[Dave Hedgehog]

Max_Torque said:

But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

all oil is too exspensive to use compared to a cheap off peak tarrif

[Carlososos]

The fact is there is no need to burn oil for almost any task. Renewables are cheaper, more reliable and better for the environment. There is no need for these desperation schemes to save a technology that is going out of relevance. It’s like trying to save vhs just because that’s what I’m used to instead of embracing that dvds are better. Onwards and upwards!

[Carlososos]

When I say the environment. What I really mean is better for us. The environment will survive no matter what we do but we might not.

[Mikehig]

Max_Torque said:

Also known as "The most expensive oil ever extracted"


Not to mention there is no long term evidence on the stabilty and security of such schemes.


And to be actually carbon negative, the entire process and all the energy consumed, including getting the CO2, has to be included. And i'm somewhat sceptical that you can caputure, compress, transport, and pump CO2 down into a well without some faily intensive energy consumption overheads.


But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

Apologies for the slow reply. I realise I should have given more background to my original post.
Enhanced oil extraction (EOR) has been standard practise in the industry for many decades, across the world. CO2 injection is one of the techniques employed. Its ubiquity and longevity demonstrate the economic viability. Here’s an example from wiki:
"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 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 current prices - well worth the effort. The CO2 injection has been running for 30 years, using gas piped over 300 miles from a synfuel plant where it is a by-product.
As for stability over the long term, the structures involved have held oil/gas for millions of years. Much of the effort to develop CCS around the world is based on using depleted fields for the sequestration.
With so much experience, all of the figures for volumes injected vs oil recovered are well-known. The same goes for all the associated work and the final consumption of the oil. The “Scope 3 carbon-negative” claim will not stand for long if it is not substantiated.
True, carbon capture from industrial processes is often challenging – technically and economically. However it becomes viable when there is a market for the CO2 such as EOR. Now the industry has woken up to the possibility of earnings from sequestration as well.
“Carbon-negative oil” does sound like having your cake and eating it and it would be PR gold for the oil companies. Let’s see how it fares.

[snowandrocks]

Max_Torque said:

Also known as "The most expensive oil ever extracted"

But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

I'm assuming that you don't know that the oil industry has used substantial amounts of CO2 to enhance oil recovery for decades?

Primary oil production relies on the natural reservoir pressure to push oil to the surface and typically only gets about 10% of the total oil out.

You can then typically flush out another 20 to 40% with water or gas. The final stage, Enhanced Oil Recovery, can then be used to get up to 60% of the oil out and one of the most common EOR methods is to inject CO2 into the reservoir - some of it comes back with the produced oil but the vast majority of it stay down there.

The real issue to be concerned with isn't cost, it's already viable, it's where the injected CO2 comes from. Most of it used at the moment comes from natural CO2 reservoirs so doesn't offset anything. However if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising.

We need oil and will continue to need oil for decades, why should we not produce that oil as efficiently and responsibly as we can?

Edit - beaten to it. I have a background in Petroleum Geolgy and Reservoir Engineering but I'm pretty rusty with the numbers.

Edited by snowandrocks on Wednesday 9th June 13:49

[anonymous-user]

snowandrocks said:

Max_Torque said:

Also known as "The most expensive oil ever extracted"

But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

I'm assuming that you don't know that the oil industry has used substantial amounts of CO2 to enhance oil recovery for decades?

Primary oil production relies on the natural reservoir pressure to push oil to the surface and typically only gets about 10% of the total oil out.

You can then typically flush out another 20 to 40% with water or gas. The final stage, Enhanced Oil Recovery, can then be used to get up to 60% of the oil out and one of the most common EOR methods is to inject CO2 into the reservoir - some of it comes back with the produced oil but the vast majority of it stay down there.

The real issue to be concerned with isn't cost, it's already viable, it's where the injected CO2 comes from. Most of it used at the moment comes from natural CO2 reservoirs so doesn't offset anything. However if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising.

We need oil and will continue to need oil for decades, why should we not produce that oil as efficiently and responsibly as we can?

Edit - beaten to it. I have a background in Petroleum Geolgy and Reservoir Engineering but I'm pretty rusty with the numbers.

Edited by snowandrocks on Wednesday 9th June 13:49

No, i am fully aware that existing CO2 is used to scavanage wells.

The problem is that using CO2 from the atmosphere is not in any way comensurate, and is hugely costly, and that is why it is a financial dead duck.

You neatly say " if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising. "

but that "if" is a rather big if.

A massive, expensive and complex if. A currently not finanically viable if in fact........

[snowandrocks]

Max_Torque said:

No, i am fully aware that existing CO2 is used to scavanage wells.

The problem is that using CO2 from the atmosphere is not in any way comensurate, and is hugely costly, and that is why it is a financial dead duck.

You neatly say " if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising. "

but that "if" is a rather big if.

A massive, expensive and complex if. A currently not finanically viable if in fact........

Apart from in the places where it's already happening?

There are loads of industrial processes that can't be decarbonised - in time, legislation will require that emitted carbon to be captured.

At the moment, the CO2 required for EOR is bought in by the oil companies. Why would those capturing carbon ignore by far the largest market for C02?

I don’t think it can be dismissed quite as readily as you're suggesting.

Edited by snowandrocks on Wednesday 9th June 14:28

[TooLateForAName]

It is impressive how much effort the oil industry is putting into greenwash.

[Mikehig]

Max_Torque said:

snowandrocks said:

Max_Torque said:

Also known as "The most expensive oil ever extracted"

But again, none of that matters, because this oil will simply be too expensive to use.....

I'm assuming that you don't know that the oil industry has used substantial amounts of CO2 to enhance oil recovery for decades?

Primary oil production relies on the natural reservoir pressure to push oil to the surface and typically only gets about 10% of the total oil out.

You can then typically flush out another 20 to 40% with water or gas. The final stage, Enhanced Oil Recovery, can then be used to get up to 60% of the oil out and one of the most common EOR methods is to inject CO2 into the reservoir - some of it comes back with the produced oil but the vast majority of it stay down there.

The real issue to be concerned with isn't cost, it's already viable, it's where the injected CO2 comes from. Most of it used at the moment comes from natural CO2 reservoirs so doesn't offset anything. However if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising.

We need oil and will continue to need oil for decades, why should we not produce that oil as efficiently and responsibly as we can?

Edit - beaten to it. I have a background in Petroleum Geolgy and Reservoir Engineering but I'm pretty rusty with the numbers.

Edited by snowandrocks on Wednesday 9th June 13:49

No, i am fully aware that existing CO2 is used to scavanage wells.

The problem is that using CO2 from the atmosphere is not in any way comensurate, and is hugely costly, and that is why it is a financial dead duck.

You neatly say " if you can capture it from other industrial processes or even from the air itself then things start to look more promising. "

but that "if" is a rather big if.

A massive, expensive and complex if. A currently not finanically viable if in fact........

If it's not viable how do you explain the project described in my earlier post which has been running for 30 years?

Penbury Oil is aiming to use 100% industrial-sourced CO2 for its next project, as described. Currently only about 25% comes from industry. CO2 capture can be tricky and expensive, depending on the source. However it looks well worth exploiting where possible, using the well-proven knowledge and experience of EOR.
There's a huge effort going into the development of carbon sequestration by injection into depleted oil/gas reservoirs. Combining that with enhanced recovery will improve the economics all round - CO2 is a big market worth $16 - 18 bn in the US alone.
One very interesting CO2 source will be power plants using the Allam cycle. That uses CO2 as the process fluid which is then available as an industry-ready product. A number of commercial-scale plants have been ordered.