[thackney]

1. Coal from a nearby strip mine is pulverized for burning.

2. Ductwork (bottom left) carries flue gas to an adjacent carbon capture facility. There, it bubbles through a 52-meter-high column filled with a solution containing chemicals called amines, which absorb 90 percent of the carbon dioxide. The rest vents from the facility.

3. The carbon-rich amine solution (RAC) is piped to a heater that removes CO2; the lean solution (LAC) is piped back to repeat the process.

4. Cooling water travels through the green pipes into a chamber that helps cool carbon dioxide as part of a compression process.

5. The carbon dioxide is turned into a supercritical liquid inside this 15-megawatt compressor. Approximately 3,000 tons of carbon dioxide is captured and compressed every day.

6. A gauge at the CCS plant indicates the flow rate of carbon dioxide.

7. Most of the carbon dioxide travels 65 kilometers to an oilfield (shown here), where it’s injected to help boost production. But some is injected at SaskPower’s site.

8. At the SaskPower site, a wellhead delivers carbon dioxide to its resting place, a saline aquifer 3.4 kilometers underground.

[thackney]

Oh Canada

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

“7. Most of the carbon dioxide travels 65 kilometers to an oilfield (shown here), where it’s injected to help boost production. But some is injected at SaskPower’s site. “

LOL. That’s gotta give the greenies night tremors.

[lurk]

Harvesting a harmless, naturally occurring, inert gas and disposing it underground.

Tell me the engineers who designed this don’t shake their heads and laugh at the climate alarmists.

[camle]

20 years from now when it goes up it will be one heck of a “kabloey”!

[Blennos]

This is sad for me to read. All of this ingenuity, effort and expense in support of a complete hoax.

[The Great RJ]

A solution to a nonexistent problem.

[thackney]

http://www.co2.no/default.asp?uid=54

The use of CO2 for EOR appears to have initiated in the United States during the early 1960´s, as documented in one article we have come across from 1964 in the Journal of Petroleum Technology by Ramsay and Small entitled “Use of Carbon Dioxide for Water Injectivity Improvement”. Much has happened since that early era.

Injection of CO2 is based upon the mechanism of miscibility whereby the CO2 mixes with oil remaining in the reservoir at the right pressure and temperature and helps improve oil production in the final (tertiary) phase of oil reservoir life. Essentially the CO2 allows operators to recover oil that would normally be left in the ground when a field reaches the end of its conventional (post-waterflood) economic life.

World-wide there are an estimated ~100 registered CO2-floods that in 2006 produced around ~250,000 bpd, but almost ~90 of these are located in the USA and Canada, primarily in the regions illustrated by the map below covering the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming, the Rangely Field of Colorado and the Mississippi Salt Basin. In North Dakota CO2 from the Great Plains Coal Gasification project is injected into the light oil field at Weyburn in Saskatchewan in Canada.

...Furthermore, the anthropogenic sources in East Texas are geographically well located between the existing CO2-floods in the Permian Basin and potential EOR activity that will also evolve in the Gulf of Mexico.

[C210N]

A Coal Plant That Buries Its Greenhouse Gases...

Isn't this very unfair to 'Rat voters? If I were a 'Rat voter I'd be up in arms... guys I voted for doing this to me.

[captain_dave]

What an incredibly stupid thing to do. They are wasting valuable heat and CO2 that could be used to supply greenhouses. Image each coal power plant surrounded by rows of greenhouses, each heated by the plants waste heat. The greenhouses and the living plants inside would act as the air filters, taking in the CO2.

One company’s waste is another’s resource. Just like in nature.

[11th Commandment]

Ping for later.. Great info

[MrB]

Stupid waste of effort and resources.

[3boysdad]

What a colossal waste of money.

[JimRed]

Shouldn’t it be a lot more cost effective to build that technology into new power plants than to retrofit the old ones?