Oliver with ccs
1. This is picking up on your "Answers welcome" below. I am entering this
fray in part because I have talked about Weyburn for more than 4 years with a
graduate consulting geologist friend who had spent some time in Weyburn on
exactly this leakage issue. She is convinced there is serious leakage - just
as alleged today by Dr. Schulling.
2. Second, I talked for about a half-hour today with someone even closer to
the allegations and technical reports on this Weyburn-Kerr-farm topic. This
person believes that the exculpatory reports referenced today by Dave Hawkins
were obtained using improper test procedures. According to this phone call,
the follow-up researchers working on behalf of the EOR/CCS users obtained their
low results because they were using a continuous pump. As a result, they were
largely measuring gases coming down to the probe tip, not upwards from any
leak. Obviously one needs to record only upward moving gases.
I now, after this phone call and reading the following reports, would
believe high readings over low readings in any such situation (especially
related to fracking [but that is a different topic]). This is especially after
hearing/reading of the differences in measurement techniques. Both groups were
using isotope differences - not only the blog results provided by Dave.
3. This same phone contact emphasized that this Weyburn oil-gas field is well
known to have a very fractured character. Given the high pressures needed to
do EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery), I would now find it incredible to NOT find
leaking anthropogenic CO2. The reports below are full of information on the
fractured character of this site.
4. The two reports that I found convincing on anthropogenic causation at this
Weyburn site can be found at:
http://www.gasoilgeochem.com/reportcameron%20jane%20kerr.pdf and
http://www.gasoilgeochem.com/reportcameron%20jane%20kerrfebruary2011survey.pdf
I hope Dave can supply something more technical than the NRDC blog to
counteract what seem to me to be two thorough studies (same site, different
times of the year), which unequivocally state there is EOR/CCS leakage on this
quarter-section farm.
For me to now change my mind, I would need to read about how/why the
probing technique described here was inferior to the later exculpatory probing
technique that showed no leakage.
There is much more to be gleaned from these two reports.
5. There is a short sad video about the Kerr family at:
http://dirtybusinessthefilm.com/blog/new-investigation-world%E2%80%99s-largest-ccs-site-will-test-potential-co2-leaks
6. I think NRDC has done a fine job advocating a cessation of coal use (that
I take should include CCS) at this site:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coalnotclean.asp
This NRDC report seems inconsistent with support for CCS - especially
in Weyburn.
Ron
On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Oliver Tickell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your reasoning is sound, in principle, but here's the funny thing. All the
> climate 'solutions' that are getting picked up on are seriously big,
> technical and expensive, offering very poor value for money. CCS is one
> example. Nuclear power is another. And come to think of it, you coud say the
> same for carbon trading systems that have cost consumers dear, and handed
> over billions to polluters.
>
> So in fact, I disagree, I do not support 'all of the above' in carbon
> sequestration, but rather doing what is low-cost, low impact, low-tech,
> low-risk and could be begun pretty much immediately on a large scale.
>
> Despite Olaf and others working hard for many years to get the word out about
> 'Rock Weathering CCS' - RW-CCS - it has picked up close to zero traction.
> What does this tell us about the world? And the world of climate change
> mitigation?
>
> Answers welcome, Oliver.
>
> On 17/10/2014 18:15, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>> The argument for including CCS in a portfolio of methods to manage GHGs is
>> that is a technique that may facilitate the adoption of policies to make
>> power generators and large industrial plants responsible for
>> limiting/eliminating releases of CO2 from their facilities. CCS is not the
>> only technique that could play this role but it is one that could contribute
>> to a broader effort.
>>
>> Keeping CCS in the mix should not be seen as dismissing other options. If
>> we get policies adopted to make large emitters responsible for their CO2
>> emissions then there will be markets for a broad range of options and
>> competition will determine whether there is a single winner, or more likely,
>> there emerges an ecosystem of techniques occupying different niches.
>> At the moment, the technical availability of CCS has enabled the adoption of
>> CO2 emission limits for coal-fired power plants in Canada and proposed CO2
>> limits in the U.S.
>> David
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Oliver Tickell <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> See also:
>>> http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/sask.-family-demands-answers-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-risks
>>>
>>> This does raise the question - if these entirely new problems were not
>>> caused by the CCS, what was it?
>>>
>>> It looks a bit like air and water contamination from fracking. The gas cos
>>> say it's nothing to do with them - but if it's not them, then why did the
>>> problems suddenly kick off the moment fracking started?
>>>
>>> Anyway, as Olaf says, you can chemically sequester CO2 from the atmosphere
>>> in Mg silicate bearing rock for about $10/tonne. So what's the point in the
>>> 30% extra coal burn, the expensive chemical engineering, the pipelines, and
>>> the non-zero hazard anyway?
>>>
>>> Oliver.
>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2014 16:39, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>>>> On the Weyburn leak claims, these were promptly investigated and
>>>> determined to not be related to the Weyburn field operations. See a
>>>> summary here:
>>>> http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bmordick/investigations_find_no_evidenc.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Researchers also calculated that the CO2 pumped into the Weyburn field
>>>> could never escape. Fortunately it is a very thinly populated area so only
>>>> a number of cattle and wild animals died when it started to leak. I am not
>>>> claiming that all potential CCS would start to leak, but there are safer
>>>> ways to capture CO2. There is no reason to capture CO2 from coal fired
>>>> plants, you can capture it anywhere, so go for the safest and cheapest
>>>> solution(see attachment), Olaf Schuiling
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
>>>> Sent: donderdag 16 oktober 2014 16:52
>>>> To: geoengineering
>>>> Subject: [geo] Storing greenhouse gas underground--for a million years |
>>>> Science/AAAS | News
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/10/storing-greenhouse-gas-underground-million-years
>>>>
>>>> MARC HESSE
>>>>
>>>> Storing greenhouse gas underground--for a million years
>>>>
>>>> When Canada switched on its Boundary Dam power plant earlier this month,
>>>> it signaled a new front in the war against climate change. The commercial
>>>> turbine burns coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels, but it traps nearly all
>>>> the resulting carbon dioxide underground before it reaches the atmosphere.
>>>> Part of this greenhouse gas is pumped into porous, water-bearing
>>>> underground rock layers. Now, a new study provides the first field
>>>> evidence that CO2 can be stored safely for a million years in these saline
>>>> aquifers, assuaging worries that the gas might escape back into the
>>>> atmosphere."
>>>>
>>>> It's a very comprehensive piece of work," says geochemist Stuart Gilfillan
>>>> of the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, who was not involved
>>>> in the study. "The approach is very novel."
>>>>
>>>> There have been several attempts to capture the carbon dioxide released by
>>>> the world's 7000-plus coal-fired plants. Pilot projects in Algeria, Japan,
>>>> and Norway indicate that CO2can be stored in underground geologic
>>>> formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal seams, and
>>>> saline aquifers. In the United States, saline aquifers are believed to
>>>> have the largest capacity for CO2 storage, with potential sites spread out
>>>> across the country, and several in western states such as Colorado also
>>>> host large coal power plants. CO2 pumped into these formations are sealed
>>>> under impermeable cap rocks, where it gradually dissolves into the salty
>>>> water and mineralizes. Some researchers suggest the aquifers have enough
>>>> capacity to store a century's worth of emissions from America's coal-fired
>>>> plants, but others worry the gas can leak back into the air through
>>>> fractures too small to detect.
>>>>
>>>> To resolve the dilemma, geoscientists need to know how long it takes for
>>>> the trapped CO2 to dissolve. The faster the CO2 dissolves and mineralizes,
>>>> the less risk that it would leak back into the atmosphere. But determining
>>>> the rate of dissolution is no easy feat. Lab simulations suggest that the
>>>> sealed gas could completely dissolve over 10,000 years, a process too slow
>>>> to be tested empirically.
>>>>
>>>> So computational geoscientist Marc Hesse of the University of Texas,
>>>> Austin, and colleagues turned to a natural lab: the Bravo Dome gas field
>>>> in New Mexico, one of the world's largest natural CO2 reservoirs. Ancient
>>>> volcanic activities there have pumped the gas into a saline aquifer 700
>>>> meters underground. Since the 1980s, oil companies have drilled hundreds
>>>> of wells there to extract the gas for enhanced oil recovery, leaving a
>>>> wealth of data on the site's geology and CO2storage.
>>>>
>>>> To find out how fast CO2 dissolves in the aquifers, the researchers needed
>>>> to know two things: the total amount of gas dissolved at the reservoir and
>>>> how long it has been there. Because the gas is volcanic in origin, the
>>>> researchers reasoned that it must have arrived at Bravo Dome steaming
>>>> hot--enough to warm up the surrounding rocks. So they examined the buildup
>>>> of radiogenic elements in the mineral apatite. These elements accumulate
>>>> at low temperatures, but are released if the mineral is heated above 75°C,
>>>> allowing the researchers to determine when the mineral was last heated
>>>> above such a high temperature. The team estimated that the CO2 was pumped
>>>> into the reservoir about 1.2 million years ago.Then the scientists
>>>> calculated the amount of gas dissolved over the millennia, using the
>>>> helium-3 isotope as a tracer. Like CO2, helium-3 is released during
>>>> volcanic eruptions, and it is rather insoluble in saline water. By
>>>> studying how the ratio of helium-3 to CO2 changes across the re
>>>> servoir, the researchers found that out of the 1.6 gigatons of gas trapped
>>>> underground at the reservoir,only a fifth has dissolved over 1.2 million
>>>> years. That's the equivalent of 75 years of emissions from a single
>>>> 500-megawatt coal power plant, they report online this week in the
>>>> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>>
>>>> More intriguingly, the analysis also provided the first field evidence of
>>>> how CO2 dissolves after it is pumped into the aquifers. In theory, the CO2
>>>> dissolves through diffusion, which takes place when the gas comes into
>>>> contact with the water surface. But the process could move faster if
>>>> convection--in which water saturated with CO2 sinks and fresh water flows
>>>> into its place to absorb more gas--were also at work. Analysis revealed
>>>> that at Bravo Dome, 10% of the total gas at the reservoir dissolved after
>>>> the initial emplacement. Diffusion alone cannot account for that amount,
>>>> the researchers argue, as the gas accumulating at the top of the reservoir
>>>> would have quickly saturated still water. Instead, convection most likely
>>>> occurred.Hesse says constraints on convection might explain why CO2
>>>> dissolves much more slowly in saline aquifers at Bravo Dome than
>>>> previously estimated, at a rate of 0.1 gram per square meter per year. The
>>>> culprit would be the relatively impermeable Brava Dome roc
>>>> ks, which limit water flow and thus the rate of convective CO2
>>>> dissolution. At storage sites with more porous rocks, the gas could
>>>> dissolve much faster and mineralize earlier, he says.Even so, the fact
>>>> that CO2 stayed locked up underground for so long at Bravo Dome despite
>>>> ongoing industrial drilling should allay concerns about potential leakage,
>>>> Hesse says. Carbon capture and storage "can work, if you do it in the
>>>> right place," he says. "[This is] an enormous amount of CO2 that has sat
>>>> there, for all we can tell, very peacefully for more than a million years."
>>>>
>>>> Posted in Chemistry, Earth
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/d/optout.
>>>> <better to turn back.docx>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
