E N D
1. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Geologic Carbon Sequestration Opportunities in Kansas
2. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Outline Growing Opportunities
3. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 Basics
4. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 US Stationary CO2 Sources
5. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Kansas CO2 Sources and Oil Resource
6. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010
7. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 Geologic Sequestration Representation of the various ways of storing CO2 in sedimentary basins (modified from Bachu, 2001).
Representation of the various ways of storing CO2 in sedimentary basins (modified from Bachu, 2001).
8. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Compare scale of Arbuckle with Sleipner
9. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Kansas CO2 EOR and CCS studies and proposed projects
10. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Arbuckle injection rates and sequestration
11. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Volumetric estimates for storing CO2 in Arbuckle domes on CKU
12. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Theoretical CO2 storage volume in depleted Kansas oil and gas reservoirs
13. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Arbuckle as saline aquifer storage
14. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Reality of costs
15. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 Retention in EOR
16. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 storage capacity and mode
17. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 Processing Styles
18. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Technical Requirements
19. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Minimum Miscibility Pressure
20. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 Phase Diagram
21. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2s operating requirements and reservoir constraints
22. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 volume with depth (P and T)
23. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Defining Kansas Resource Targets
24. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 CO2 EOR impact in Kansas will be significant. just how significant will be determined by future events.
25. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Convergence
26. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Potential CO2 EOR in Kansas Technically feasible Kansas target is very large compared to current production. Immediate target is relatively small compared to current EOR in US, mostly in West Texas. Long term target could be much larger
Technically feasible Kansas target is very large compared to current production. Immediate target is relatively small compared to current EOR in US, mostly in West Texas. Long term target could be much larger
27. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Impact of Technology on Kansas Oil Production CO2 Kansas would be the recovery if one used all CO2 from all current Ethanol plants and fertilizer plants in Kansas. The "other" would be if we could bring in a lot more CO2 from outside the state of Kansas. CO2 Kansas would be the recovery if one used all CO2 from all current Ethanol plants and fertilizer plants in Kansas. The "other" would be if we could bring in a lot more CO2 from outside the state of Kansas.
28. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Why not Kansas?
29. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Why not Kansas?
30. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Current CO2 Used for EOR
31. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Kansas Strengths and Challenges for CO2 EOR CCS Development
32. KSU CHE 670 January 7, 2010 Kansas Oils next generation?