Mike
We could be picky about our trenches. We do not have to be all that
deep, only about 700 metres.
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
On 02/06/2011 17:00, Mike MacCracken wrote:
But aren't 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
<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>>
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
