Don Braid, a columnist in the Calgary Herald, writes from a position of minimal knowledge about a complex subject and thinks that we should listen to him (and the NDP who raised this question in the Alberta legislature).
He thinks the government of Alberta should prohibit the use of in-situ combustion (i.e. injecting air into oil reservoirs and igniting is so the heat of combustion helps reduce the viscosity of the oil, and the combustion gases will help push the oil towards the production wells) because it sounds like a PR nightmare on par with the 1950′s era dream of using nuclear bombs for the same purpose.
First of all – lots of crazy ideas about nuclear bombs were dreamed up in the 1950′s. Read Dyson’s book on the Orion Project for evidence of that…
But on the subject of in-situ combustion, if Don Braid had asked people with knowledge in the field, he would have learned that in-situ combustion has been used commercially around the world since the mid-1960s, including in Alberta. Has there been any safety problems? It would be lying to say no. But the risks are understood. And turning off the fire is easy – turn off the air supply – it’s not like you can light an underground oil reservoir and it just burns for five years (as Braid insinuates). If you stop supplying the air, it stops burning.
Braid might be surprised to know that there are in-situ combustion projects (including toe-to-heel) already operating in Alberta. He might also be surprised to learn that there are projects to gasify (partially combust) coal underground to make gas to run a power plant. Including one proposed in Alberta that has received Government money. Some of this technology dates to the middle of the 19th century.
So I would recommend that Braid do more research before spouting off about a subject he clearly knows little about.
On the other hand, since Braid (and others) are clearly terrified of this technology, those companies involved with it need to do a better job of selling it to the public and explaining the risks and how they are managing them.
4 comments
john says:
21 April 2010 at 17:45 (UTC -7 )
Braid is a typical journalist. These idiots graduate from their absurdly simple community coolege or university journalism programs after studying….well…basically nothing challenging for two to four years.
Then, for some reason they seem to believe that their toilet paper diplomas make them instant Stephen Hawkings.
They are loudmouth, egotistical, elitists who don’t know a damned thing but believe that everyone else’s knowledge base is somehow inferior to their own.
I would love to put a journalist with a PHD in journalism into a first year, first semester engineering program and see what his/her marks were at the end.
Don Braid wouldn’t make it past the first month’s exams.
Alex says:
21 April 2010 at 18:31 (UTC -7 )
Why are there so many idiots?
My big question is weather they let the exhaust come to the surface? It would make sense to to let the formation pressure up since that would also help extraction. The added bonus being there is no carbon capture necessary because its already captured. Slam-dunk.
Taliesyn says:
21 April 2010 at 21:06 (UTC -7 )
Generally the goal is to leave the combustion products in the ground – some gas return is unavoidable, but most of it will stay underground.
Cynical Bard says:
24 April 2010 at 18:42 (UTC -7 )
I have worked on project like this and monitoring (i.e ) analyzing) the exhaust gases is one of the essential tools in monitoring the underground process.
And if you have a plan to produce only the liquid and leave the vapor in the ground, the oil industry could likely use you.
Since the injection is normally air, there is a large volume of nitrogen that is going somewhere. Pure oxygen has been used and that can be “fun” too, for a bunch of reasons.