dropoutdave 0 #1 February 3, 2005 Very interesting. If it could be done successully it has the potential to make a huge difference world wide. Thoughts? http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1404711,00.html ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 February 3, 2005 Very interesting and novel idea... but I cannt help thinking that there's an easier (less engineering) way... Stop cutting down trees and plant some more. After all, their basic job is to lock carbon (taken from the atmosphere and chuck out some O2)... Y'gotta love trees! P.S Just another thought .. Isn't dumping stuff at sea or down Oil wells/mines a bit like sweeping our rubbish under the carpet .. you might not be able to see it ... but its still there to kick us in the arse later? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #3 February 3, 2005 The idea of carbon sequestration is not new, the downside is that it is expensive. Its not as simple as pouring the CO2 down a hole, or burying it. If we could get an economic means of transporting the CO2 to the well site, then a safe and managable means of compressing it, maybe it will fly CO2 is not very good for 'gas lifting' residual oils in the reservoir either. It does nasty chemical things to steel work topsides. Plus when you gas lift a well, much of the lift gas comes back up to surface in the well fluids, so you still have to separate it and re-inject, or vent it to atmosphere which kinda defeats the point. I prefer natural sequestration, eg the rainforests etc.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #4 February 3, 2005 Ah well. that one didn't last too long! Trees it is then!! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #5 February 3, 2005 We are not giving up on it though, I looked at converting a big installation due for decommissioning (BP Miller platform) to this purpose just last year. The economics didn't stack up in that instance, but it doesn't mean to say that it can't happen. It all depends on the rising costs of CO2 emissions, potential for carbon trading, and the government's wish for this to happen (tax incentives, etc).-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #6 February 3, 2005 Quote(tax incentives, etc) Yeah its not going to be cheap. I haven't any figures yet but would tax relief on the last bit of oil that would be pumped out be enough to cover it ya think? Just wondering what kind of tax relief the oil companys are talking about, whether it's just on the oil that the CO2 could pump out or just tax relief in general. I read somewhere that it has already been done in Texas I believe. Still trying to find more info on it. Cost aside, if there is a way for this to work then it could be the biggest step towards saving our asses on this planet. Plant trees on oil rigs too. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #7 February 3, 2005 If we go whole hog on taxing companies based on the amount of CO2 they produce for them... so long as the CO2 tax would cost more than sticking the stuff underground does then this idea could become a great tax cutting proceedure for companies. There's even the potential to make money at it if you're good enough (read if the tech and location allows you to get good enough). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #8 February 3, 2005 Quotebut I cannt help thinking that there's an easier (less engineering) way... Stop cutting down trees and plant some more. After all, their basic job is to lock carbon (taken from the atmosphere and chuck out some O2)... Y'gotta love trees! Yeah you would think so wouldn't ya but that just makes too much sense. From what i've read we are too close to a 'possible point of no return' regarding CO2 emissions for the planting of trees to have a big enough effect. Would still like to see it done though, we could do with all the help we can get at the moment. QuoteP.S Just another thought .. Isn't dumping stuff at sea or down Oil wells/mines a bit like sweeping our rubbish under the carpet .. you might not be able to see it ... but its still there to kick us in the arse later? Good point, they said one of the problems is sealing the CO2 in. Not going to do us much good of if they start spitting it back out at us. That would be karma for you! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #9 February 3, 2005 Yeah there is alot of money out there that could be used. I don't know why but with the amount of money that oils companys make I get an uneasy feeling in giving them tax breaks. Where do you draw the line between the oil companies, businesses and indivduals responsibilities regarding CO2 emissions? Interesting times. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #10 February 3, 2005 QuoteWhere do you draw the line between the oil companies, businesses and indivduals responsibilities regarding CO2 emissions? Dunno - I've not looked into the proposed legislation. Maybe all companies will be graded? Maybe there's an emissions threashold overwhich you have to pay?? Perhaps more likely it will target industries in the worst offending secotrs??? I'm simply guessing... try asking Nac? In practical terms though I'd figure the line's drawn between tonns and pounds... ie even at my most offensive I probably still don't kick out tonns of CO2 a year... I'm guessin many industries do. Regarding this all comming back to bite us in the arse... I wonder when we'll see our first compensation claim for damages because of the earth quake resulting from Earth's first "fart"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #11 February 3, 2005 "I read somewhere that it has already been done in Texas I believe. Still trying to find more info on it." Spindletop was the name of the field they used for that trial, maybe that will help.Its an onshore field, which aids matters immensely, we only have one one significant onshore field in the UK at Wytch Farm in Dorset Tax relief would be more general, and could be used to sunstantially offset the cost of the equipment and infrastructure required. It would also help in license applications if the oil company could demonstrate that it was being 'environmentally responsible'.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #12 February 3, 2005 QuoteRegarding this all comming back to bite us in the arse... I wonder when we'll see our first compensation claim for damages because of the earth quake resulting from Earth's first "fart"? hahahaha I can just imagine it. What ever happened to all the hippys? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #13 February 3, 2005 "What ever happened to all the hippys? " A lot of us are still around.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #14 February 3, 2005 QuoteRegarding this all comming back to bite us in the arse... I wonder when we'll see our first compensation claim for damages because of the earth quake resulting from Earth's first "fart"? It could be more disaterous than you think. CO2 emissions put corals at risk http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4226917.stm---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #15 February 3, 2005 What impact would the CO2 liquid have on the environment if it was to escape? You mention that this is a very expensive procedure - which means corners will be cut somewhere ..... With comments like the following one, I tend to believe that we will not make significant changes in time to prevent long term damage. Quote Dr Andrei Illarionov, economic adviser to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, refused to accept that current warming was any more than a variation in the natural climate, and he repeatedly interrupted the proceedings with questions. He told the Guardian: "President Putin was under great pressure to sign the Kyoto protocol, and Russia did so because we like to be friends with Europe, not because we believe in the science of climate change. "I tell you in any case that people like to be warm, which is why Europeans go south for their holidays. Anyone who is frightened about the prospect of global warming is welcome to come and live in Siberia." _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #16 February 3, 2005 QuoteWhat impact would the CO2 liquid have on the environment if it was to escape? It'll turn back into CO2 gas as soon as the pressure's removed. QuoteRussia did so because we like to be friends with Europe, not because we believe in the science of climate change. At least the Ruskies are making a show of it when certain other countries just pull out.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #17 February 3, 2005 "What impact would the CO2 liquid have on the environment if it was to escape? You mention that this is a very expensive procedure - which means corners will be cut somewhere ..... " Indeed, which is why we have to have responsible engineering consultants like me look into it more carefully. The effect would probably be very little, but that would depend on the nature of the leak, we already have existing leak detection techniques for gas and oil wells, so the technology and practices are a relatively straightforward transfer, eg annulus monitoring (for anyone who is aware of wellstrings). Permeation through the rock formation etc is very unlikely, those same formations held gas for millions of years, often at much higher pressures than we would expect to be reinjecting CO2 at. Probably the bigger concern would be infrastructure breakdowns, IE large bore ruptures of topside piping, pipelines, or compression systems. One of those 'events' would look like a huge Pink Floyd gig. 'I tend to believe that we will not make significant changes in time to prevent long term damage.' Sadly I agree with you, many people now reckon we are on a 'topple point' IE everyone accepts that climate change is a natural process, and cyclic, however we are at the point where a wee nudge in the wrong direction, at the wrong time, could change that cycle significantly.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #18 February 3, 2005 see also, this from the Beeb on this very subject today.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4233011.stm-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #19 February 3, 2005 Up here in southeast Washington state, we're looking at sequestration in the basalt formation with the idea of eventual precipitation of carbonates, e.g. calcite. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #20 February 3, 2005 >If it could be done successully it has the potential to make a huge difference world wide. I've thought for years that if you really want to sequester CO2, just use it to make methane. The path is: wind power to generate electricity electricity splits water into H2 and O2 H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + H20 (Sabatier process) Use the oxygen for whatever (welding) Reuse the water Send the methane out for people to use as natural gas. This ends up 'reusing' the CO2, and can be done infinitely if you reuse atmospheric CO2 for the process. But in the end I think reductions in emissions of gases to begin with is a lot easier than dealing with them after they've been created. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #21 February 4, 2005 Hi, From your experience, what does the total energy equation look like for the different types of carbon sequestration? i.e how much power does it take to pump the CO2 down into Oil Wells/Coal mines, where does this power come from and so how much CO2 is produced in the generation of that power? Also, I was trawling around the net yesterday (I must be sad, cuz I find this is an interesting subject)...... if we go the Coal Mine route, the byproduct appears to be Methane ... isn't that also a Green House gas? so are we trading one 'baddy' off against another? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #22 February 4, 2005 To be honest, I only looked into the one situation, IE an offshore platform that is basically still in good shape, being used as the host installation for this purpose. Oil production from BP Miller is about to cease, and it is relatively new, so makes an ideal long term host. Its just in the wrong place right now. Power generation in that instance would be local, probably by importing gas from another installation to run its own existing turbine generators. With relatively efficient generators and compression trains we would probably not be generating as much CO2 from the turbines as we were shoving down the hole. Very few offshore platforms are connected to the grid, notable exception being the Beatrice field which is about to converted into into a massive wind powered generator, and I do mean massive, the generator head on its own (not including blades and mast) will weigh 300 tonnes. The other main stumbling block that we saw was that of gathering the CO2 and transporting it to the installation. We looked at cryogenic tankers, a bit like the LPG ships, or pipelines. Both routes have their challenges, eg you don't want lumps of dry ice forming in the piping as they will mash up the compressors, any water forming in the pipeline will increase corrosion by forming carbonic acid, the pipeline is extremely temperature sensitive, etc. BP made the decision on the economics of the project, we were simply looking at technical feasibility and costing up some options. As Billvon pointed out, reducing our CO2 emissions should be the preferred strategy. Sorry, I don't really know much about the other options such as soil sequestration or deep mine disposal. I know deep mine disposal is expensive, we priced up disposing of a large amounts of LSA scale (naturally ocurring radioactive limescale type stuff that comes up with oil and water in certain fields) from Miller at Dounreay, and I was really surprised at the cost of that. I'd guess that in deep mine disposal, it would be relatively straightforward to 'capture' the methane by-product , treat it then pump it into the local gas grid.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #23 February 4, 2005 Thanks for that. Blue Ones (not likely this weekend tho) (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
