But aren¹t deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject to rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan?
Mike On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All > > I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural gas then they > should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this argument would be changed by > fracking. > > However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is higher than that > of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression with it and then cover the CO2 > puddle with a material which prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the > sea water then most of it should stay put. The cover could be a layer of > liquid with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and very low > miscibility with both. This would allow it to self repair. We could also > stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to release some in order to offset > Lowell Wood's overdue ice age. We need to look for deep depressions close to > where CO2 is being produce or could be concentrated. > > I did suggest this in a previous contribution to the blog quite a while ago > but I think that it sank without trace. This is what we want for the CO2. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > Institute for Energy Systems > School of Engineering > Mayfield Road > University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > Tel +44 131 650 5704 > Mobile 07795 203 195 > www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> > > On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote: >> Michael raises the crucial issue: Should the oil and gas industry be relied >> upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 sequestration? >> >> There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 years ago, made by >> his group at UCI, of the methane content of air across Texas & Oklahoma. He >> found no difference in methane levels in cities vs oil fields and farms. >> >> He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings that yielded no >> oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were leaking methane into the air. No one >> has contradicted this. >> >> That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to working on CROPS, >> where we know it takes ~1000 years to return to the atmosphere. >> >> Gregory Benford >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
