What with Mike's mentioning the recent earthquake off of Japan, are folks on this list aware that the first real-world methane hydrate mining project, funded by the Japanese government, was set to begin about a month before the quake/tsunami, in the Nankai trough, not all that far away, and run by none other than Tepco?.....Anyone here know more about it, any endogenous seismicity issues, landslides, etc?
Cheers, N On Jun 3, 8:01 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/ > > From memory ocean storage was pretty safe in theory. Co2 and water dissolve > together to create a mixture more dense than either. > > The demo was pretty cool but I'm on my phone so I can't check if the video > is still up. > > You can pester the lecturer for a YouTube video if you like > > What about earthquake, flood basalt, dissolution into subducting rock, etc? > All a bit unstable and complex for my liking, those great lakes of co2 > sitting down there. Plus, won't it turn marine snow into methane? > > A > On 3 Jun 2011 12:52, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Andrew > > > The deep ocean seal I am postulating is a liquid with low miscibility > > with both CO2 and sea water and a density between them. It should self > > heal if punctured but could have quite a high viscosity. Whether or not > > it will work depends only on current velocities. We need to know what > > these are wherever the depth exceeds 700 metres and then see if such a > > magic liquid exists. My guess is that it might work if the deep water > > velocity was below 5 cm per second but we can test for this in small > > tanks in the lab. I know that lots of places have velocities well above > > this but perhaps not all. Like I said we can be picky about the places > > we choose. Undisturbed ooze might be a good indicator. I would rather > > have a small but defined leakage than something we thought was perfect > > but which then suddenly failed, hence the need for self healing. > > > Can you tell me any more about what was said at The Royal Society and > > which date it was? Did anyone mention liquid sealing layers? > > > 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 20:37, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > >> It's not that simple. This issue was covered at the royal society. > > >> If reserves are deep enough, they will be kept stable by pressure. As > >> long as they're not perturbed and don't diffuse into anything, you > >> should be ok. > > >> If you're relying on pressure containment, then fracking is a problem. > >> However, the pressure reservoir is unstable anyway so why use it. Use > >> a deep saline aquifer instead. > > >> I don't trust deep ocean disposal as there's no seal. The ocean is too > >> dynamic to mess with in this way. Doesn't pass the gut feel test. > >> Maybe that's voodoo engineering, but it's served me pretty well. Only > >> useful as an emergency option, but the storage isn't the hard bit, as > >> I see it. > > >> A > > >> On 2 Jun 2011 20:18, "Josh Horton" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > Michael writes in an earlier email that "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 know a little about > >> > CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then > >> > we've got a problem. Oil/gas, coal, and power plants do not neatly > >> > overlap, so if fracking comes at the expense of CCS, we could see > >> > conflicting interests within the broader resource extraction industry. > > >> > Josh Horton > >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >> > On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >> 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 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > >> <http://195www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> > > >> >> 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] > >> <mailto:[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/%7Eshs><http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > >> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> > >> >> > <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] <mailto:[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=dZe1AeH0Qz8Ifyou 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] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>. > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> >> > [email protected] > >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> > >> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%[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] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>. > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> >> > [email protected] > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
