Talk:Enhanced oil recovery

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bposson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

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

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)

methods besides CO2

I think that other materials are used for this as well. I think nitrogen is used in the Gulf of Mexico, and seawater in Saudi Arabia, but beyond that I don't know. Could someone who is knowledgeable please include information on this? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.143.34 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think EOR technique can be more elaborately explained keeping in mind individual primary, secondary & tertiary methods citing their difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgupta3011 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a series of advantages using CO2 as the injecting gas . One of them is preventing it from moving to the atmosphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirkazemi (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

History?

It would be nice to have a brief history section. For example, where, when and by whom was the technique first applied? By the way, I found this article after reading a The Times article today: Work begins on unlocking oil that could multiply North Sea riches, by Rhoda Buchanan:

• "Oil buried deep under the North Sea could be unlocked by new technology, giving the subsea oil reserves an extra 30 to 40 years of life. Experts estimate that there are three billion barrels of “hard to reach” oil that could be worth about £190 billion. The extraction of this oil is dependent on a process used in the US called enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which will now be researched in the UK. The Centre for North Sea Enhanced Oil Recovery in Aberdeen was opened by Alex Salmond yesterday. It will be led by academics from the University of Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt University. The centre will get funding from the Scottish government and Scottish Enterprise, as well as commercial funding from 2Co Energy."

--Mais oui! (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Plasma pulse

This section seems a bit biased in favor of this technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.248.144.142 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And it does not describe technology at all. May be cut it short or move to "other technologies" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.151.229 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The section, quoted below, reads like an ad and talks a lot about how good the technology is without mentioning what it is at all. I'm cutting it out, and placing a brief description under an "Other methods" section farther down the article instead. 131.111.16.20 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Plasma-Pulse technology is the newest technique used in the USA as of 2013. The technology originated in the Russian Federation at the St. Petersburg State Mining University with funding and assistance from the Skolkovo. The development team in Russia and deployment teams across Russia, Europe and now the USA have experienced this technology in vertical wells with nearly 90% of wells showing positive effects. The technology of plasma-pulse action is absolutely clean, safe, it does not harm the cement column and underground equipment. This oil well technology is protected by multiple international patents.

The Plasma-Pulse Oil Well EOR utilizes low energy emissions to create the same effect that many other technologies can produce except without negative ecological impact. In nearly every case the volume of water pulled with the oil is actually reduced from pre-EOR treatment instead of increased. Current clients and users of the new technology include ConocoPhillips, ONGC, Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil,

It is based in the same technology as the Russian Pulsed Plasma Thruster which was used on two space ships and they are currently advancing the technology for use in horizontal wells./

References

EOR article is not about oil sands

There's quite a bit of misplaced information here about producing syncrude from oil (tar) sands. I've added a headnote to direct interested readers to that topic. This article is about various techniques to stimulate production from conventional crude-oil fields. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC), geologist.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enhanced oil recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313143356/http://www.coaltransition.org/pages/_enhanced_oil_recovery__eor__/154.php to http://www.coaltransition.org/pages/_enhanced_oil_recovery__eor__/154.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enhanced oil recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100208003810/http://www.ptrc.ca:80/weyburn_statistics.php to http://www.ptrc.ca/weyburn_statistics.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enhanced oil recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207071349/http://www.touchoilandgas.com/enhanced-recovery-needs-enhanced-a423-1.html to http://www.touchoilandgas.com/enhanced-recovery-needs-enhanced-a423-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Water-Alternating-Gas

I would like to include the following in the EOR article to include Water-alternating-gas technology, an effective and widely used technology in enhanced oil recovery.

Water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection is another technique employed in EOR. Water is used in addition to carbon dioxide. A saline solution is used here so that oil well carbonate formations are not disturbed.1 Water and carbon dioxide are injected into the oil well for larger recovery, as they typically have low miscibility with oil.2 Use of both water and carbon dioxide also lowers the mobility of carbon dioxide, making the gas more effective at displacing the oil in the well.3 According to a study done by Kovscek, using small slugs of both carbon dioxide and water allows for quick recovery of the oil.3 Additionally, in a study done by Dang in 2014, using water with a lower salinity allows for greater oil removal, and greater geochemical interactions.4

References: [1] Zekri, A. Y., Nasr, M. S., & Al-Shobakyh, A. (2011, January 1). Evaluation of Oil Recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection - Oil-Wet & Water-Wet Systems. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/143438-MS [2] Thomas, S. (2007). Enhanced Oil Recovery—An Overview. Oil & Gas Science and Technology. doi: 10.2516/ogst:2007060 [3] Kovscek , A R Energy conversion and management [0196-8904] yr:2005 vol:46 iss:11-12 pg:1941 -1956 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2004.09.009 [4] Dang, C. T. Q., Nghiem, L. X., Chen, Z., Nguyen, N. T. B., & Nguyen, Q. P. (2014, April 12). CO2 Low Salinity Water Alternating Gas: A New Promising Approach for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/169071-MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bposson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Differentiate from fracking?

It would be nice to get a subject matter expert's differentiation of EOR from Fracking DouglasHeld (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential Expansion/Creation of History & Policy Sections as Well as Canadian Projects

I'm thinking of expanding or creating the sections above. Below is a list of potential sources to begin this process. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. DOE Information on EOR Usage https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery US EIA Information on total oil Usage https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=a Summary of the state of EOR at the end of the 20th century http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/pubs/electrotech_opps_tr113836.pdf A book on EOR. It can be used for its section on "soft issues," like geography and regulation, as well as its economics section. https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpEORFPDS1/viewerType:toc/root_slug:enhanced-oil-recovery---field-planning-and-development-strategies/url_slug:new-technologies?&issue_id= Has information on an EOR site in Canada. https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy.library.cmu.edu/science/article/pii/S1750583616302705?via%3Dihub A look at some of the potential negative consequences of EOR. https://www.cleanwaterfund.org/publications/EOR-risks A look at current regulations on EOR in the US. There is a bias to the article, but it still has good information. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/regulation-eor-carbon-dioxide-sequestration-report.pdf This source has some good information on the current legal state of EOR in the US. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1978/7807/780707.PDF I have proper citations for most of these links. Hhausman (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

CO2 EOR projects

The CO2 EOR projects section is lots of detail about numerous of particular implementations of a particular technology and doesn't seem appropriate here. Perhaps it can be it's own separate page? -- Dough34 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)