I've not seen this mentioned anywhere, but CH4 leakage can be identified
with C13. The HCO3-CH4 fractionation is, from memory, about 80 per mil,
so even a small CH4 leakage will affect the carbonate C13 noticeably.
And measuring C13 in dissolved carbonate is trivial. I did some work on
this in the Winnipeg aquifer in the mid 1970s. One of the students at
the University of Waterloo, where I was at the time, did a thesis on
this aquifer I think ... but I left U of W soon after and never kept in
touch.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++=====
On 10/26/2013 5:41 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:
Mark,
I don't have the information on the particular formation nor do I have
even a short study of the geochem under my belt. Open access to the data
would be nice. Still, the issues of tracking the leakage will need the
use of radioactive tags. In simple terms, the gasses would need to be
contaminated with radiation. How else would methane leaking from the
project be differentiated from natural seepage? The same can be said for
the CO2.
Geothermal should be highly developed and the Texas coast is a prime
area for that energy production method. And, using CO2 to generate
methane in such deep wells may very well be environmentally sound when
all the carbon is accounted for. However, geological storage of CO2 is
not now, and most likely never will be, an option which covers
geological time frames. And, what should be done once the irradiated
gasses are discovered above ground? No one has ever plugged a fissure
leakage of any size.
I mentioned the ground water problems in that region to highlight that
the contamination from old wells is highly significant and that the area
is shot full of holes which can not be even located. Also, the strata
domes which originally held the pressure from the origional oil and gas
deposits (and aquifers) are subject to subsidence once the original
pressure is reduced and thus cap strata fracturing is common.
Historically, a well is maintained simple to keep it open while
production is economical. Keeping such a geological structure
functioning for meaningful geological time scales is questionable...at
best.
With this all said, I would be interested in more detailed information.
I'm attaching one paper which address the subsidance issue.
Geomechanical Modeling of Reservoir Compaction, Surface Subsidence,and
Casing Damage at the BelridgeDiatomite Field:
*/"The central premise of the numerical simulations is that spatial
gradients in pore pressure induced by production and injection in a low
permeability reservoir may perturb the local stresses and cause
subsurface deformation sufficient to result in well failure."/*
Best,
Michael
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Michael,
Only from the picture (not scanned to keep the file smaller) do you
know Dr. Bryant is discussing an aquifer the top of which is about 3
kilometers below the ground or the seafloor. He is not discussing
what one considers "groundwater." He is discussing a salty aquifer
(perhaps higher TDS than seawater) that is separated from
"groundwater" by a couple kilometers.
Shallow groundwater is also not that hot. I recall discussing the
geothermal resources of this brine with UTexas researchers a few
years ago in connection with a U.S. Department of Energy Funding
Opportunity Announcement involving Geothermal energy that would not
affect fresh water resources.
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org <http://www.PODenergy.org>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [geo] Re: Neg C - One-Stop Carbon Solution
improved-implemented, SciAm article
From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sat, October 26, 2013 12:53 pm
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Mark et al.,
I grew up along the Texas coast and can tell you that the
geological storage capacity for CO2 is...zero. Most, if not all,
of the ground water is highly contaminated due to past drilling
(there is no closed-loop system) and the brine. You will not see
crop irrigation along the South Texas Gulf Coastal Region simply
for the fact that the use of the /*highly contaminated ground
water*/ would flat out kill the crops. Humans would eventually
die if they drank it! Also, there is a heavy sulfur
contamination which may effect the chemistry of this proposal.
As to the idea that there is some form of closed loop system in
that area, please consider that that particular area has
probably been the most intensely drilled area on the planet for
close to 100 years. Even operating miles down, the probability
of finding a geological structure that is not the geological
version of Swiss Cheese is small.
The statement of */"the storage procedure itself would produce a
vast amount of methane for fuel," /*is taking for granted that
all the old wells can be permently plugged (for geological time)
(or even found!) and that the cap formations have not fractured
due to the lack of the origional pressure holding them up.
When it comes to the Texas Gulf Coast and CO2 geological
storage, we may best keep in mind that that area is home turf
for much of the global FF industry. I'm sure that they are happy
to sell the idea that all is warm and fuzzy when it comes to
dealing with climate change.
Best
Michael
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:03:42 AM UTC-7, MarkCapron wrote:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/__index.cfm?fa=Products.__ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID___CHAR=B7C7B466-1B78-E06C-__AE922115308DDF51
<http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=B7C7B466-1B78-E06C-AE922115308DDF51>,
or attached.
“The One-Stop Carbon Solution” could have been more clear on
its negative carbon value. 380 Tcf of CH_4 burns to 21
gigatons of CO_2 or about ^1 /_5 of the 100 gigatons of
stored CO_2 . The difference is explained because more CO_2
than CH_4 can be dissolved in water.
Have Texans realized how to maximize their benefits from Dr.
Bryant’s process applied to their Gulf Coast brine
resources? If the U.S. Federal Government were to apply a
reasonable fee on fossil carbon dioxide emissions applied
domestically and on the carbon footprint of all imports,
Texans would have the least expensive energy in the world
for a long time.
The U.S. in general already has a global edge (if we had a
carbon fee) with inexpensive CH_4 to replace coal because of
U.S.-developed hydraulic fracturing technology. But the
carbon fee-augmented U.S. advantage due to fracking
technology will dissipate as the technology spreads. The
U.S. Gulf Coast brines (with a carbon fee) represent a much
larger international trade advantage than fracking
technology and may be unique to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Mark
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org <http://www.PODenergy.org>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
/Michael Hayes/
/360-708-4976/
http://www.voglerlake.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
