- Verifying barrels of oil remaining and presenting potential revenue in ranges based on remaining oil seems more beneficial - with 8 billion barrels remaining, revenue would be ..., with 12 billion barrels, revenue would be ..., etc.
- Base potential revenue on the FRCs (Field Reservoir Combinations) identified by screening and used in this pipeline proposal?
- 5% seems to be a conservative recovery using CO2. It would be beneficial to show Potential Revenue to the State by recovery: 5%, 10%, 20%. The EORI has historical data from CO2 floods in Wyoming, Permian Basin, etc., that will show recoveries much higher that 5% using CO2.
co2 on a commercially attractive basis.....if what was the most advanced project in regards to requiring a new source of co2 was unable to secure co2 why would other companys bother venturing down that path...
ReplyDeleteaccording to the latest EORI report 160mmcfd co2 is expected to come online in 2010 and there are 3projects under review...
Grieve-ELK are going ahead with a chemical flood now due to inability to secure co2 on a commercially attractive basis
Ranchers fields-Rancher is verging on calling in the receivers...I have also heard those fields are unattractive to co2 flood..
Sussex-can anyone tell me at what stage Anadarko is with this field and what quantities they would require???
160mmcfd co2 where is it all going to go????
So all the work being done by the EORI amounts to nothing if the industry cant work together to match co2 with oil fields/companys...why talk of building 100s of miles of pipeline infrastructure when a field 3miles from current co2 pipeline cannot get the co2...
Interested on views from those in the know....
Cheers
apologise, half the above post is missing, had trouble posting it..
ReplyDeleteA few years ago the EORI did an in depth study on co2 flooding of the Grieve field owned by ELK petroleum, it was determined that around 21mil barrels were recoverable... however ELK (so I am told) were unable to secure co2 on a commercially attractive basis to warrant going ahead with a co2 flood and are instead going to chemical flood the field........if what was the most advanced project in regards to requiring a new source of co2 was unable to secure co2 why would other companys bother venturing down that path...
according to the latest EORI report 160mmcfd co2 is expected to come online in 2010 and there are 3projects under review...
Grieve-ELK are going ahead with a chemical flood now due to inability to secure co2 on a commercially attractive basis
Ranchers fields-Rancher is verging on calling in the receivers...I have also heard those fields are unattractive to co2 flood..
Sussex-can anyone tell me at what stage Anadarko is with this field and what quantities they would require???
160mmcfd co2 where is it all going to go????
So all the work being done by the EORI amounts to nothing if the industry cant work together to match co2 with oil fields/companys...why talk of building 100s of miles of pipeline infrastructure when a field 3miles from current co2 pipeline cannot get the co2...
Interested on views from those in the know....
Cheers