ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

CO2 Free Energy from Oil?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Wordsmith, Aug 3, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. WRT bold

    Gas injection for shale gas recovery

    Looks like it could work rather nicely in shale, if I'm reading that right.
     
  2. Wasn't the terminal built for Grangemouth Cracker to off load it's Ethane after the plant converting from Naptha feed to total Ethane Cracking?
     
  3. The terminal was built by INEOS to import US shale gas as feedstock for their ethylene plant. They did this because:
    • US gas prices are much lower than North Sea gas
    • The cost differential is so much, it is still cheaper to ship it across the Atlantic
    • US ethylene manufacturers are undercutting INEOS because their feedstock is so much cheaper
     
  4. No.
     
  5. Well, that article is about using gasses rather than water based fluids for fracking rather than recovery (despite the headline). It's interesting and still seems to be at the study stage. I've certainly not heard of any fracking operations using gas, and everything I've seen in the industry press is about water-based fluids.
    It is interesting, though, and I'm curious as to whether there's been any take up on it.

    ETA: a recent article about water for fracking
     
  6. Thought so Sabic have done the same on Teessdie but we only went half way on the conversion as the plant already cracks NGL's so it was decided to keep the option.
     
  7. Your right but the gas used at Grangemouth has had the 80% Methane removed to leave the Ethane for cracking into Ethylene for mainly plastics production but a vast array of other products too.it makes something like a 30% I think increase in margin for the same amount of Crude based feeds. It's driving the Saudi's nuts which was the reason they bought the Teesside facility and are supposedly planning to build one in Louisianna with Exxon according to the corporate bumff I've seen.
     
  8. Seems there's quite a bit of work going on regarding CO² in shale, from extraction to storage, and by all accounts it seems to be viable especially as I see a report saying that CO² yielded better results than water when it comes to fracking when one company tried it back in the 90's, General Electric and Statoil are actually working on using CO² only in fracking as well as we speak, Praxair have developed a process called "Dryfrac" which is being tested, with decent results, in Oklahoma, etc, etc, etc, and one advantage seems to be that the CO² used for fracking can be captured at the well head and then reused which is an obvious plus as there's hardly any need for huge storage lakes like with "conventional" fracking.

    When it comes to "storing" CO² in fracked shale, there are studies, at least since I haven't looked much further yet, which say that there wouldn't be any real problem as the gas would "fill the cracks" and stay in the fracked ground with no issues.

    The big problem seems to be getting the stuff to the site, but since some rather major companies are spending very substantial amounts of money to find a way to frack without the problems wet fracking has then I think that they will find a way around that as "dry" fracking will put a massive boot into the testicles and chesticles of the treehuggers as they will not be able to howl about the polluted waste water, etc, as they do now.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. What happened to Carbon Capture systems, could CO2 be scrubbed in sufficient quantities from waste systems on existing Gas/Oil fired power stations, to feed the new system on site removing the need for transportation costs.
     
  10. "Bolt-on" systems mean lower efficiency, that's why they haven't taken off.
     
  11. Do you only come on ARSSE to take the pi55?

    It's not a stupid idea. It works on paper. Some hard-nosed investors have put a lot of their precious money into a trial. Time will tell as to the efficacy of the idea.

    The main greenhouse gas is not H2O. It's CO2, for the simple reason that the carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation. Chopping down trees just releases more CO2 as the wood decays/is burnt etc. Do you know where oxygen comes from?

    What lunacy is "spilling oil on water" - are you suggesting we cover the oceans with oil.

    Third point is toss. It's true but meaningless.

    Christ knows what your fourth point is. The Red Army is going to cure CO2 emissions.

    You are either a troll or monumentally stupid.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Please, ignore it instead of encouraging it, it might go away then
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Good plan.

    Implemented.
     
  14. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    Forget it. Now it is not in fashion.

    Are you banned in Google? Read something, my little dull friend.
    You can start here:
    Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
    Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


    Yes, but not much. But without trees, water vapor emission will be decreased.
    Sure. Main source of oxygen netto-income - swamps, second - some ocean regions.
    Not all of them, of course. But if you really want to decrease GHG emission - you can do it.
    Yanks have to kill European (and other competitors) industry. Way one - tell them mad stories about "Global warming" and force to buy permissions on CO_2 emission. Way two: start war in Ukraine and blast pipe from Russia. Start war in Syria and not allow to build pipe from Qatar. No pipe, no gas, no energy, no industry (in Europe). Profit for USA.

    Now it is active second way. It allow not to waste money on stupid environmentalist's agitation, and get money by trading costly US-gas and oil.
     
  15. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    For arrsers, who are to lazy to read wiki just a picture:
    [​IMG]