BS: Underground carbon storage

Subject: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:54 PM

Prime Minister Steven Harper says the Canadian Government will invest 343 million in a coal-fired electricity generation plant in Alberta. Carbon will be captured and stored underground; he says Canada can be a leader in this technology. It is viewed as the first of a number of such coal-fired plants.
In Germany and Norway, carbon capture and underground storage is being used in connection with petroleum production.

Alberta, and adjacent provinces have huge reserves of coal; the cheapest fuel for power generation.

Questions have been raised about the safety of underground carbon stoage. In most cases, the carbon will be input into porous rock, displacing the salt water prevalent in much rock of this type.

1. Safety? Leaks can be dangerous (CO2 from a volcanic source in Nigeria killed nearby villagers).
2. Can the storage be maintained to prevent danger to future generations?
3. Displaced salt water could enter adjacent porous rock containing potable water, harming both drinking supplies and irrigation water.

I have some reservations about subsurface carbon storage; to me, it seems that it creats a problem to be dealt with by future generations.

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Genie
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:57 PM

Underground carbon storage - Isn't that called a "graveyard?"

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:00 PM

Forgot to note- article from The Canadian Press, 13:21EDT, October 14, 2009 Wabamun, Alberta.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:23 PM

"Carbon will be captured..."

captured?? from what? Coal is already 'captured'... I can see that in Alberta it makes a certain sense...but what other forms are they talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:27 PM

So you dig up the carbon in a coalmine, and you burn the carbon to make CO2 - and then you remove the O2, giving you carbon once more, and then you bury the carbon in a coal mine...

Somehow it seems as if there must be a flaw in the logic of this process somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: pdq
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:47 PM

"Underground carbon storage - Isn't that called a 'graveyard?'"

Yes, but that is not its soul purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:50 PM

Hmmmppff! I thought souls were 'sposed to go elsewhere, anyway....☺

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

There are three options in terms of putting garbage somewhere: In the water, in the soil or in the air. Tha-tha-tha-that's it, folks.


Here's an article from June 25, 2004.

"Underground carbon dioxide storage reduces emissions

A new approach that is one of the first to successfully store carbon dioxide underground may have huge implications for global warming and the oil industry, says a University of Alberta researcher. Dr. Ben Rostron is part of an extensive team working on the $28 million International Energy Agency Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project--the largest of its kind--that has safely buried the greenhouse gas and reduced emissions from entering the atmosphere.
"It's one thing to say that underground is a great place to store carbon dioxide, but it's another thing to be able to prove it as we have done," said Rostron, from the U of A's Faculty of Science and a co-author on a paper appearing today in GSA Today, a journal published by the Geological Society of America. "We have been able to show that you can safely capture carbon dioxide that would otherwise go back into the atmosphere, and put it back into the ground. It's very exciting work."

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas in the atmosphere whose concentrations have increased as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil, natural gas and organic matter. CO2 emissions have been linked to global warming, and there has been a worldwide effort to reduce those emissions and their effects on the planet--the Kyoto Protocol, for example, has mandated these changes.

Carbon dioxide sequestration is being evaluated internationally as a viable means of long-term carbon dioxide storage. Rostron is part of the project started in 2000 to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of storing the gas in a partially-depleted oil reservoir in Saskatchewan. The researchers are working with Encana Corporation on their 30-year commercial carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery operation which is designed to recover an incremental 130 million barrels of oil from the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan . The gas comes from the United States, where it is compressed and sent through a pipeline to the Weyburn field. There, Encana injects it into the reservoir and the results are observed by the project scientists and stakeholders--including regulatory agencies and government officials. More than 1.9 billion cubic metres have been injected so far.

Not only has the project been successful to demonstrate one way for the industry to have economically reduced carbon dioxide emissions that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere, but it allows the oil industry to pump carbon dioxide into its wells and produce extra oil, said Rostron. The work also demonstrates that geological sequestration can be successful, enabling wider application in other parts of the country and the world, he said.

"The oil companies have seen incremental production close to what they predicted and from the scientists' point-of-view, we've been able to see a response to our techniques and been able to monitor it very, very closely," said Rostron, the hydrogeology co-ordinator on the project. "Everything we've done has shown us this is a good place to store carbon dioxide.

"Countries around the world are spending millions to investigate this same technique and we've been able to do with success."

The project is co-ordinated by the Petroleum Technology Research Centre and is sponsored by Natural Resources Canada, the U.S. Department of Energy, Alberta Energy Research Institute, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources, the European Community, and 10 industrial sponsors. Research is being conducted by universities, industry, federal and provincial government agencies in North America and Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Slag
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

Carbon, like water exists in a fixed amount on this planet. It is never a question of how much or how little. It is a question of where is it. Make more babies. Plant more trees, etc. We have underground sequestration: Coal, limestone, peat, diamonds. This is what nature does. Carbon is the result of the celestial smelter; the super nova. Being somewhat light weight it is found in quantity in the crust. Life is another way of nature gathering carbon into a specific locale. Support LIFE!

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 06:58 PM

When coal is burned, carbon in the form of carbon dioxide normally goes into the air (greenhouse gas). The new process captures the carbon before it is released into the air and it is injected into porous rock in the ground, thus reducing greenhouse emissions.

Sorry, I thought this would be understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 07:44 PM

hmmm...sounds interesting. But the post from Peace above indicates it is a pretty new technology and it is not clear what the cost/benefit analysis is today. In the Western US, we 'have' oil shale, but the price of oil would have to be pretty high to make it worthwhile, and the environmental impact would be heavy.

The article Peace gives us says it IS quite experimental. If CO2 can be recycled on a large scale, we might have something.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 09:23 PM

Two projects approved-
Carbon capture at Scotford oil sands operation:

"Ottawa, Alberta to Fund Carbon Capture Project; Governments will provide $865 million for Shell Quest venture aimed at capturing, storing carbon dioxide from the Scotford upgrader" at their oil sands project.
The province of Alberta has added some $745 million to the federal $120 million, raising the government totals to over $865 million for the project of bitumen upgrading with carbon capture, more being provided by the operator, Royal Dutch Shell, bringing the initial total to $1.35 billion for the 15 year project.

The Globe and Mail, Report on Business, Reuters, Jeffrey Jones, October 8, 2009.

(A similar project involving coal-fired generation of electricity, with carbon capture, and injection of CO2 into rock formations, is to be erected at Wabamun, Alberta, which sits on extensive coal deposits which are at shallow depths. It has been pledged $780 million. Trans-Alta will build the plant. The Canadian Prime Minister vowed to keep Canada at the forefront of carbon capture technology.
www.cbc.ca, October 14, 2009. )

Alberta has set aside $2 billion for carbon capture and storage projects.

The process of carbon capture from emissions has been in operation for over two years in Europe; injection of gas and liquid into subsurface rock has been used for at least 20 years by petroleum producers as a means of enhancing production, but not as a storage measure.

The processes used in this project have been developed by Shell Oil and are separate from those used by Encana Corporation at Weyburn in Saskatchewan, which uses imported compressed CO2 gas to inject into oil-bearing rock, to enhance recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 09:52 PM

So they are going to break the CO2 into its component parts, releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere and putting the C into the ground. This is fine as far as it goes, but...carbon is a solid (graphite, diamonds, "amorphous carbon"). They will be putting a solid back into a solid?

Also, large accumulations of coal, which have remained inert for hundreds of millions of years in the absence of oxygen, may spontaneously combust when exposed to air, for example in coal mine waste tips. I'd want them to be very, very careful that wasn't any danger of this.

I need more information, like how to make two solid bodies occupy the same place at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:08 PM

No one said anything about breaking CO2 into component parts. In my last post, it is quite clear that CO2 is the captured product, a greenhouse gas, that will be injected into porous rock formations.

Newspaper reports, business and technical reports, all refer to this as 'carbon capture', omitting the oxygen involved, considering this to be generally understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:21 PM

"I need more information, like how to make two solid bodies occupy the same place at the same time."

Sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:21 PM

Q-

A similar plant has been proposed for the former Maine Yankee nuclear plant site in Wiscasset, maine. A major concern raised was the tremendous volume of fresh water that was needed to flush the system out, and it was very dirty water by the time it was ready to exit. No one really wanted it draining into the river and then into Sheepscot Bay. Well, no one except for some construction people and a few city counselors who wanted to regain a major cash cow for a tax base; they really miss Maine Yankee paying 90% of their taxes. This plan appears dead in the water.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:30 PM

Charley, I fail to see the comparison. CO2 injection?

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Janie
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:31 PM

Seems too me (and I do not claim to be well informed) that Q's question re: are we just putting the problem off for later generations to have to deal with (sorry Q, for the very rough paraphrase) drives right to the heart of the matter.

Seems to me that we keep looking for ways to excuse and/or mitigate against our current consumption, with no true foresight regarding the implications for our children and grandchildren.

In my own lifestyle habits, I am as guilty as anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:35 PM

I disagree, Janie. The fact you said that means you've considered it and therefore have tried to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:46 PM

If it is injected as CO2 dissolved in water (carbonated water, in other words) you will be injecting at least some H2CO3 (carbonic acid) into the earth. It seems to me that eventually the water and the CO2 would eventually go out of combination (the fizz goes flat).

This, by the way, is the same procedure some "investors" told us here would be used for a proposed (and yet to be built) coal gasification plant.

It seems to me that doing this is, as has been said, leaving the problem for our descendants (if any).

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:05 PM

Janie, that is my main worry about these projects. Will the CO2 leak at some future time? Will fresh water supplies be damaged?
Moreover, would the $2 billion reserved for these projects by the province be better spent on hospitals and schools?

The Wabamun project bothers me the most, since pumping the CO2 into the rock forces salt water (in this area) to move out, possibly entering fresh water reservoirs. The Wabamun area has good farmland, that is, where the soil hasn't been removed to get the coal. Parts of the area now put the moonscape to shame.
No one seems to worry overmuch about the tar sands areas (not heavily settled, far from the cities where most of us live). Forest and habitat are being destroyed, but no one notices.

Of course, this activity keeps those of us in the province well off (house prices again rising to new highs after a very slight drop, unemployment rates low, according to Statistics Canada the seasonally adjusted rate for last December was 4.1%). Many people have a "What, me worry?" attitude.
My house, built for $29,000 some 50 years ago is currently valued at $700,000 plus (sounds good, but city taxes are increasing exponentially).

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:08 PM

Rapaire, no water would be injected with the CO2 in the method proposed. The CO2 injected as a gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Slag
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 12:22 AM

Thass what I said, Peace! Support LIFE!!

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Paul Burke
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 01:58 AM

Most coal was created from organisms that captured the carbon dioxide about 200 million- 350 million years ago. Oil is more problematic, but probably at least as old.

It would be prudent therefore to seal any captured CO2 for at least as long as this. I doubt if engineers would consider current techniques as reliable for more than a few hundred, or at best a few thousand years.

The technique does share one big advantage with nuclear power though- it promises juicy long- term contracts immediately, while postponing the problems (and even the evaluation) beyond the human timespan.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:49 AM

Injected as a gas? That's not what they told us about the gasification plant.

I got me doubts, I does....

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:15 AM

Q-

The coal gasification plant that was proposed for Wiscasset, Maine, appears to me to be exactly what is being proposed in your area. Here's a link to the story: Click here for article!

My understanding is the carbon dioxide gas has to be purified before trying to pump it hundreds of feet underground into the granite bedrock (which in Maine is typically fractured bedrock!). The "scrubbing" process is what would require huge volumes of fresh water which threatened to pollute the river and bay. In addition, Maine is not a coal-mining state. The plan was to keep the plant supplied by towing hundreds of coal barges up the coast and then up the long winding tidal river. The plan's backers also asked for an exemption to the town building codes and were turned down in a subsequent referendum. The referendum was not binding but the plan appears to be dead.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:22 AM

The risk of future leakage is one of the snags with this untried technology.
Also much less energy will be obtained from each ton of coal.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:46 AM

*IF* this can actually be done with 'relative' safety, there still remains the question of how much energy/power will be required to do the capturing, scrubbing, injecting...and eventually, the recovering.

I guess I better go look for some site that deals with the math....

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:06 AM

The C02 gas is captured just before, during, or after combustion of fossil fuels, and is pumped under great pressure to depths (~8 to 10k feet) where it is actually a liquid. The gas itself is heavier than air. So, leakage is not the obvious problem one might picture - but it is a potential problem. The idea is to find places that would have been (or maybe formerly were) natural gas traps - e.g. anticlines with impermeable cap rock. At these depths, groundwater is typically briney and unusable for drinking or agriculture, so the threat to fresh water supplies is not great (unless briney artesian aquifers are punctured and un-cased holes allowed to carry brine upward into fresh aquifers - this has happened where drillers/
engineers/geologists are not paying attention).

Lake Nyos in Cameroon was a natural disaster involving a giant belch of CO2 from a volcanic lake, but not a good analogy for sequestration. Sequestration would not be done (we hope!) in a volcanic area where extra heat and pressure could force it back up.

It is a perfectly reasonable (though expensive at this point) technology. Here is my beef - why do anything that promotes continued usage of non-renewable hydrocarbons? Let's start the switch to renewables now, and not spend money and brainpower on putting band aids on a dirty and dying lifestyle (economystyle?)

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 01:36 PM

Well, I think the coal gasification plan is dead here, too. And we're in an active seisimic area (Yellowstone...need I say more?). The coal was going to be railroaded in from Wyoming. Of course, it also had to cross the Shoshone-Bannock Reservation and they had doubts about the whole thing as well.

Instead, there are wind farms going up...and the Sho-Bans are funding a geothermal plant...and the city is looking at photovoltaic on every possible roof, including the Library.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:08 PM

These Alberta projects are not gasification-related. the technology is completely different.

Guest TIA raises some points. He(?) is correct about forcing the CO2 under great pressure into permeable rock with caprock or laterally impervious rock, theoretically effectively sealing the CO2 in these traps.
In an anticline, however, the salt water which comes in after oil is pumped out (or which most likely is there if no commercial fluids were there in the first place) is forced down the limbs of the anticline as the CO2 is emplaced and may enter beds which are not sealed, and eventually reach aquifers which may contain potable water which is used for agriculture and drinking.
For this reason, amounts of CO2 emplaced must be limited.

In the oil sands area where the largest projects will take place, there are almost flat-lying Cretaceous sand and shale and Devonian limestone-dolomite beds and some granitic sediments resting on impervious granite. (The bitumen is in the Cretaceous marine-brackish environment sands.) The CO2 captured at the upgraders will be pumped into beds which have tight lateral seals (pores too fine or absent, thus movement of gas or liquid theoretically impossible). Cracks, faults and subsurface pressures, however, may eventually allow leakage. CO2 is heavier than air, as noted by TIA, but it will be under pressure, thus leakage is possible if the seal is imperfect or is ruptured.

Much water is used in the mining and extraction of bitumen from the oil sands. Extractors such as the Scotford (mentioned previously) clean and concentrate the bitumen so that it may be pipelined. Procedures are being revised so that some of the water is recycled, reducing water volumes needed.

TIA's beef- why not switch to renewable energy?
The answer is that the next 30-50 years will see the continued use of coal, bitumen and petroleum. It will take at least that long to develop the infrastructure for viable alternatives. The cost of the transition will be very high; governments like Alberta's will not consider them when large and profitable sources of energy exist in the province and demand for these materials and the energy generated from them, in the U. S. and eastern Canada, is and will remain high high for at least 50 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:10 PM

I hear you, Slag.

Years ago I was camping in the Sierras with two friends: one a physicist and the other an engineer. (I was a pot-smoking singer-songwriter so I don't count in this little tale.) They started talking about using solar power to light up Los Angeles. By their then-estimates, it would have involved using more copper wire than the world could supply.

We are nearing--if we haven't already passed--the time we'll be able to call on solar/wind power. It is very short-sighted on our part to presume we'll think--HEY, solar power. That'd work. We need to be developing technology in that area while also reducing our dependence on gas/oil/coal/wood as ways to heat water to turn turbines, etc. It's beyond serious and has been for about two decades. Let's turn guns and swords and uniforms into something our children's children's children will thank us for. Right now, I expect they'll curse us for turning 'the garden of eden' into a garbage dump. I can't say I'd blame them.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:57 PM

Yes, it would speed the transition if the money spent on wars, the most wasteful human occupation, were spent on technology.
Nuclear seems the only real possibility, what with the skyrocketing demand from Asia, South America and Africa.
The speed of development in China, South Korea and Brazil was unforseen, and India is coming on fast. Will Iran and others be far behind?
But there is a waste problem to be solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:19 PM

Nuclear has the same problem- where do we put the waste safely- though the timescale is a mere 25000 years, or 2.5 times all known human history. Plus that we have to get the fuel from other countries, and it produces fine materials for terrorism, and that somebody might be tempted to do a 911 job on the plant....

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:31 PM

We've got a great nuclear fusion plant providing more energy to the Earth that we could possibly need to use, with a whole range of ways of tapping into it - tidepower, wavepower, windpower, sensible bio-fuels, and of course direct use of the power supplied.

The Sun gives us everything we need, we've just got to use our collective intelligence to make use of it. Some chance, it seems...

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:38 PM

Uranium sources are readily available in the United States and Canada. Australia has the largest reserves. Canada accounts for 1/3 of global output.
There are, however, some doubts as to sustainability of conventional reserves. Unconventional sources, such as sea water, have not been tested.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:16 PM

The sun gives us us not only source of power, but a limit on what we can use. It's very approximately a kilowatt per square metre absolute maximum. Thats an ideal, we can't harvest it all, but if you hope for an improvement from current 1-2% for solar power to 20% say, that gives us 200W/square metre, or about 10kW if I covered all the property I own in solar high tech panels.

Anything we use more than that- not just domestic consumption, but hidden costs like transport, services, imports and so on- is burning up the planet's savings.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:26 PM

Paul Burke- Solar may contribute 20% in 50 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:23 PM

Windpower and bio-fuel power are both of course indirectly forms of solar power.

But I shouldn't have included the tides as powered by the Sun - tides are powered by the Moon.

But between them the Sun and the Moon can give us everything we need without relying on fossil fuel or Earth-based nuclear power.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 07:42 PM

It would be worth checking into Uranium City on Lake Athabasca in Saskatchewan. People suspect that leaching of radioactive substances into the Lake's water--and indirectly into the rivers flowing from the Lake into areas of Saskatchewan--is causing double the death rate in new-borns and also a higher than average deformity rate in new-borns.

IMO, while I agree that the present realistic 'ultimate' power source IS nuclear fission, the cost is just too hign UNTIL we learn how to handle the waste (as was noted above).

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:42 PM

The oil sands, pulp and paper industry and leakage from the closed uranium mines have all been blamed for sickness, esp. high cancer rates, in the Fort Chipewyan area on the Athabasca River.

They all may be related to the cause. Reports suggest that the Canadian government has taken a "What, me worry?" attitude toward the area, far from public notice and inhabited mostly by natives, loggers and miners.
There are commercial fisheries based on Lake Athabasca; I haven't seen any recent analyses on contamination. The Athabasca Alliance has petitioned the government, but I don't believe that any answer has been given.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_238_e_30190.html

These are controllable situations; if valid they should be addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:48 PM

I started my teaching career in Fort Chip about 23 years back. The cancer rates there are through the roof. WAY beyond statistical norms.

Subject: RE: BS: Underground carbon storage
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 01:51 AM

No need to backtrack McG- tides are caused by BOTH the moon and the sun. Although the moon is a lot nearer than the sun, it's a lot smaller- and by sheer coincidence the gravitational effects of the two are of almost equal magnitude. Hence neap tides- when the sun and the moon are opposing in effect- and spring tides, when they both pull together.

Interesting graph in yesterday's paper- showing supply growing, but demand growing faster- as the cause of the "energy crunch". Gives an indication of which end we should be tackling the crisis from.