'Squeeze green oil from North Sea by squirting CO₂ in' - prof

Re: Why pay to pump oil up now?

"Just pump the cheap stuff out from under Saudi Arabia, then go back for the dregs in 20 years when the price is sky high and the peasants will pay anything to keep their automocars running."

Indeed, this is how these companies work. Why bother doing anything more than the minimum necessary to keep the product shipping at current levels of profitability (or better)? The fact that Worstall points out some ruse or other by BP to get the taxpayer to foot part of the bill for some project just shows that doing what is "strategically right for the nation" (or however you want to look at it) isn't going to trump revenues, profits and dividends, especially for a company like BP whose connection to the British nation is mainly historical.

On the North Sea front, Statoil have been pumping carbon dioxide underground for a while, albeit not to extract anything as a result. Whether they're doing this to avoid emissions liabilities (possible despite the concessions the offshore industry seems to enjoy) or because the Norwegian government (as majority owner) has to push them to do something in order to not look like hypocrites on the whole climate change thing, it's fairly certain that no independent, multinational oil company is going to do this kind of thing on a large scale without either being punished for not doing so or being permitted to hold the corporate hand out for some taxpayer-funded benefits, just to keep those all-important shareholders happy, of course.

The last thing Britain needs is an excuse to keeping sucking on the teat of Big Oil, however.

Sea water injection

Already done. It's bloody expensive because water is so heavy and because the water has to be purified before injection so it doesn't clog up the reservoir with small particles of grit and microscopic beasties.

CO2 is used because its easier to handle and in the case of most oils, actually makes them less viscous and easier to recover.

What the article doesn't mention is that the Texan CO2 is coming from natural gas wells. Gas companies remove the CO2 before putting it into the pipelines because it dilutes the useful product. It's easy to recover and transport. Capturing it from combustion is a much harder task.

Are

"How about re-opening some of those super pits, of which some where profitable"

Couple of mines in Wales (Unity and one I don't recall the name of) have been re-opened, and there are (or were) plans to re open others around and about the place.

It's only in the last few years that it has become economical to do so as the price of coal has risen, and the cost of the technology required to un-mothball pits has fallen.

Why invest?

I guess the Treasury would invest if it thinks it's going to get more back in taxes than it put in (plus interest, inflation, etc.). Investing in one thing that gives you money doesn't *necessarily* (although it might in practice) preclude you from investing in another thing.

Industrial SodaStream

Get busy with the fizzy. (tm).

Spot on.

CO2 Corrosion is quite a big issue in the industry already. If the CO2 they pipe out offshore is dry then its not so much of a problem, but once they start producing from wells with increasing amounts of CO2 and a high water cut all the Carbon Steel flowlines will corrode pretty quickly. Using duplex is bloody expensive so it would take the price of oil / gas going up pretty high before that would be cost effective. The other option is to pump huge amounts of nasty inhibitor downhole which doestn exactly chime with the 'green' benfits of sequestering carbon.