Tracer use would be the only way to assure we get what we pay for. The only practical way to find a CO2 leak in an oil field would be to see the sand kicking up around the leak. Well head monitoring will not be a reliable means as CO2 can be absorbed into some rock formations. So, any leak related drop in pressure could be readily explained away.
Fracking uses chemicals which would leave any clathrate area devoid of life for centuries....if not longer. Calthrate drilling needs hot water which, may itself, have significant effects on the local AOM community as most hydrates are associated with loose sediment. The seepage of the chemicals/hot water would be difficult to control for. Here are 2 papers I base my views upon as they give a detailed view of what is known about the physical reality of the hydrate fields. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/01k4m30p <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/01k4m30p> http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2tz8x1ct I have spent most of the last week studying their works and will try to pull together some observations in the next few days. The main point that grabbed my attention was the call for an "engineered" release to study what may be expected by a GW induced event. Thanks, On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote: > It would be nice if that were the case, but even in heavily populated > regions such as the Niger delta, where energy infrastructure is extensive > and sea ports are accessible, gas flaring is still common. > > Much methane released is in low concentrations, and can't be recovered, > even if the will is there. The oxidisers used for cleaning it out of mine > air are serious bits of kit, not installed lightly by operators. > Substantial incentives are needed. > > On another note, can fracking technology be used to dissociate clathrates? > > A > On 1 Jun 2011 22:31, "Mike MacCracken" <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I think it is also important to remember the difference. Every reasonable > > effort will be made to capture any methane they can as it can be sold as > > energy. The same is not true of CO2, and with the higher background, > leaks > > may well be harder to detect unless some tracer is added to the > sequestered > > CO2. > > > > Mike MacCracken > > > > > > On 6/1/11 4:39 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of > >> extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is > a > >> load of methane and the odd earthquake. > >> > >> Seems like a fair trade off to me! > >> > >> Obviously, it's a completely unacceptable technique for oil extraction > in its > >> current form. Nice data set, though. Shame it doesn't bode well for CCS, > >> though - although I'm sure views may vary. > >> > >> If only we could get the oil industry to build us some cloud machines > and high > >> altitude planes... > >> > >> A > >> > >> On 1 Jun 2011 21:25, "Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Hi Folks, > >>> > > >>> > After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the > >>> > methane release being caused by "Fracking". Here is a link to a > resent film > >>> > on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you > are > >>> > interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take > the > >>> time > >>> > to view this film. I do realize that any "media" based documentary is > >>> > subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for > 2 > >>> > reasons. > >>> > > >>> > 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive > CO2 > >>> > geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the > table. I > >>> > have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. > However, > >>> this > >>> > type of information should raise profound questions about the entire > >>> concept > >>> > of geological CO2 sequestration. > >>> > > >>> > 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this > >>> > drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at > >>> > the regional level. > >>> > > >>> > Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil > field > >>> CO2 > >>> > sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas > industry > >>> > activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas > industry be > >>> > relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 > >>> > sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related > pollution > >>> is > >>> > important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying > this > >>> > industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be > >>> viewed > >>> > with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do > apologize > >>> > to all used car salesmen for the comparison. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks for your patience. > >>> > > >>> > Michael > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >>> "geoengineering" group. > >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK. > >>> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > . > >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > >>> > For more options, visit this group at > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > >>> > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
