Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

So just to clarify, there is no way for places to ship us CO2 but we are open for places to send it to us to store? Makes sense

I assume the scheme would be similar to carbon offsets.

Company A makes 1,000,000 tons of CO2 per year;

Company A pays Alberta company (who was heavily subsidized by taxpayers) to store the 1,000,000 tons of CO2 per year.

Alberta Company pulls 1,000,000 tons of CO2 out of atmosphere and stores it.

Company A claims they are carbon neutral.

[Torture]

Of course, Direct Air Capture uses a large amount of power, so for Alberta to pull it out of the air and store it, we would need a clean grid and likely, abundant cheap solar.

Oh wait, we put a moratorium on all of that. Ooooooops.

[edslunch]

What if we extract too much CO2 and it starts to affect plant life and oxygen production???*

(*I actually read this on another forum)

[burn_this_city]

CO2 can be shipped once you compress it to a supercritical fluid. The engineer knowhow around these projects is pretty developed at this point. We've spent the last 80 years pulling untold millions of tons of CO2 out of the ground here, don't see why we shouldn't try to capitalize on putting it back if its economical. The next 20 years in this province will be economically tied to the viability of these projects.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by edslunch

What if we extract too much CO2 and it starts to affect plant life and oxygen production???*

(*I actually read this on another forum)

I know this doesn't need a response but in the ever so unlikely event that we get to that point, I can rest easy knowing that we have already invented the technology of on/off switches.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is an interesting question.



So the question is really is the cost difference between Dirext Air Carbon Capture and the cost of source based carbon capture less than or greater than the cost of shipping.



LNG cost about $2 per MCF to ship. CO2 will be cheaper to ship as you only need to maintain -60C instead of -160C. Though you will need about 100psi of pressure to keep it liquid. Oil costs 2-5$ per barrel. So that would give a range of 14-50$ per m^3. A m^3 of CO2 is 1100kgs.



So somewhere between 14-50 per m^3. At $50 per CCS cost off of concentrated streams and $100 for DAC you’d likely have a market. At the napkin level it’s worth more investigating.

DAC uses about 1200kWh per ton, so at very best you're looking at about $50-90 per ton just for energy if off grid with solar and only doing it when the sun is shining. Add in capital costs and financing, etc and you're probably looking at multiple hundreds per ton and that's after scaling up

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by edslunch

What if we extract too much CO2 and it starts to affect plant life and oxygen production???*

(*I actually read this on another forum)

The amount we would have to extract to get there is staggering.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by craigwd

No - using less carbon is a good thing.
Spending billions to hide it under the bed is not a good thing.

Disagree- that's where it was before, and it stores it way longer than some trees would. The only thing I prefer more is actual geologic storage (making "rocks" that suck in and bind the carbon in chemical form). Trees die and decompose. You're kicking the can down the road by just planting trees. But if you plant trees AND inject extra carbon back into deep wells under shale capstone layers, then you are removing some of the carbon from the cycle.

Look into the science, it makes sense to inject the carbon. We've been doing it successfully for 8 years in Alberta already (shell quest). Another benefit is that we could potentially reuse it in a more energy-free future... CO2 bonds are energy intensive to break, but if energy becomes limitless from fusion or something, then we would have stores of carbon to make into fun things again.

[Monahammer]

DAC using turbofans is stupid as ####.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90797750...arbon-on-farms

This type of tech is way, way better.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The amount we would have to extract to get there is staggering.

Agreed, it's a laughable concept. The original poster was adamant that 'they' wouldn't know when to stop extracting, so we're all doomed.

Having said that, the amount we would need to extract to make a meaningful difference is also staggering. Current estimate of CO2 mass in the atmosphere is about 3.29 x 10^12 tonnes:

The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 g mol−1. The current (April 2023) CO2 con- tent of the atmosphere is about 410 ppmv, or 420 x 10−6 moles per mole. The atmo- sphere contains about 7.48 x 1016 moles of CO2. The number of moles of CO2 is thus about 1/9 the number of moles of of water vapor. The total mass of CO2 is about 3.29 x 10^18 g.

Supposing we want to reduce this by 10% at an optimistic cost of $100/tonne. We're looking at $32,900,000,000,000, and that's assuming no new contributions.

I'm all for it - every bit helps - but this is far from a panacea.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Disagree- that's where it was before, and it stores it way longer than some trees would. The only thing I prefer more is actual geologic storage (making "rocks" that suck in and bind the carbon in chemical form). Trees die and decompose. You're kicking the can down the road by just planting trees. But if you plant trees AND inject extra carbon back into deep wells under shale capstone layers, then you are removing some of the carbon from the cycle.

Look into the science, it makes sense to inject the carbon. We've been doing it successfully for 8 years in Alberta already (shell quest). Another benefit is that we could potentially reuse it in a more energy-free future... CO2 bonds are energy intensive to break, but if energy becomes limitless from fusion or something, then we would have stores of carbon to make into fun things again.

Injecting into depleted gas reservoirs seems to make sense to me. We know what the original reservoir pressures are, so logically(and I'm not a reservoir engineer) you should be able to safely inject and "refill" those reservoirs staying below the original pressures as long as you do it at a safe rate. Given the natural gas was stored for millions of years, the CO2 should also be safe.

[Monahammer]

DAC to stored carbon to shipping it to alberta for storage is never a value chain that will exist IMO. Recently a quebec company did propose exactly this to Brian Jean, probably why the dim lightbulb above his head is lit, but the economics make less than 0 sense. There's also carbon in the air anywhere. Why does it matter exactly where it's from?

The international picture here is more relevant in the context of things like Dow's Path2Zero announcement: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301999044.html

We have carbon storage options (even some prebuilt like ACTL!) that you can tap into TODAY to decarbonize production. We are ahead of EVERYONE on this front. That's where the real international audience gets interested. The next big opportunity after this dow project for petrochemicals is Blue H2 with 99% C02 capture and low cost Natural gas feedstock. An order of magnitude more productive than electrolysis, and if combined with adequate solar and other decarbonized energy sources, could be even less carbon intensive on full lifecycle. Tons of interest from Japan and Korea already, the big hurdle remaining is tidewater access- Ammonia by rail to coast is unappetizing.

[Robbob]

I think it is an interesting idea, especially with some of the work and things some people are doing with CO2. I have no idea how it would have to looks on a bigger scale, but turning the CO2 into concrete or carbon fiber is interesting way of creating a permanent carbon sink.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Injecting into depleted gas reservoirs seems to make sense to me. We know what the original reservoir pressures are, so logically(and I'm not a reservoir engineer) you should be able to safely inject and "refill" those reservoirs staying below the original pressures as long as you do it at a safe rate. Given the natural gas was stored for millions of years, the CO2 should also be safe.

You’re more likely to inject CO2 into a Precambrian reservoir. Old gas reservoirs aren’t good “storage” candidates.

[Cappy]

Science question for you... scientists.

What makes Alberta's geology a prime candidate for storage?

Is it due to the "empty" fissures that previously held P/NG? or is it a geological thing?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Science question for you... scientists.

What makes Alberta's geology a prime candidate for storage?

Is it due to the "empty" fissures that previously held P/NG? or is it a geological thing?

Yes!. Not fissures but rather pore space + permeability and unconformities that seal it all in.

Alberta is also a great candidate because we have so much knowledge of the subsurface and have been injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery for years.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You’re more likely to inject CO2 into a Precambrian reservoir. Old gas reservoirs aren’t good “storage” candidates.

There are no Precambrian reservoirs as that stuff is high grade metamorphic and igneous rock. Only a few thousand wells in Alberta have penetrated the Precambrian rocks. No one is going to be injecting anything into that stuff.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

There are no Precambrian reservoirs as that stuff is high grade metamorphic and igneous rock. Only a few thousand wells in Alberta have penetrated the Precambrian rocks. No one is going to be injecting anything into that stuff.

It’s what the pathways project is planning to inject to. A few cap rocks and salts as the seal. Ask me how I know…

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It’s what the pathways project is planning to inject to. A few cap rocks and salts as the seal. Ask me how I know…

Thought they were looking at the basal Cambrian sands. At least that’s what a friend said he was mapping as part of that effort.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It’s what the pathways project is planning to inject to. A few cap rocks and salts as the seal. Ask me how I know…

Did you put the wrong zone on a regulatory application or drilling plan?