Carbon Storage..

[Azure]

I'm actually not even surprised this hasn't gotten more media coverage, especially here in Alberta considering we're one of the leaders in developing this kind of technology. The media is more interested in telling everyone we're screwed, instead of telling us about the projects being developed to reduce carbon 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.

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.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ucd062504.php

Or maybe we should schedule another Earth Hour.....

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm actually not even surprised this hasn't gotten more media coverage, especially here in Alberta considering we're one of the leaders in developing this kind of technology. The media is more interested in telling everyone we're screwed, instead of telling us about the projects being developed to reduce carbon emissions.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ucd062504.php

Or maybe we should schedule another Earth Hour.....

Going forward this will be the only way Alberta will meet its 2020 emission targets with continued oilsands development. There will be collaboration between the major players to put the system in place, and it will likely be a pay for usage system similar to pipelines. It will definately prop up conventional production for a while. Hopefully it will also lower water usage by eliminating the need for water injection.

[Gozer]

Global warming!

[MelBridgeman]

NO the media is too busy telling the world how bad Alberta is......

[ken0042]

I've heard of this before, and I have a question.... what happens to the CO2 once its stored? Does it break down into carbon and oxygen molecules, or does it just sit there?

Because if it just sits there, aren't we simply passing off today's issues onto future generations? The only difference is instead of the effects being seen in 50-100 years where the future generations can say "great-grampa Ken was a jerk for leaving us the CO2", now it will be left for hundreds or thousands of years where documentaries will be saying "nobody knows for sure why the people of the ancient 21st century thought it would be a good idea to leave this mess for us to clean up."

[Slanter]

I guess the hope is that it will stay down there as surely as the gas an oil used to stay down there.

In other words, unless Ken's great grandchildren start drilling holes there it shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the question of whether or not it stays there, or if it slowly seeps out is one that I don't think has been answered yet.

[FlamesAddiction]

But I thought global climate change had nothing to do with humans...

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I've heard of this before, and I have a question.... what happens to the CO2 once its stored? Does it break down into carbon and oxygen molecules, or does it just sit there?

Because if it just sits there, aren't we simply passing off today's issues onto future generations? The only difference is instead of the effects being seen in 50-100 years where the future generations can say "great-grampa Ken was a jerk for leaving us the CO2", now it will be left for hundreds or thousands of years where documentaries will be saying "nobody knows for sure why the people of the ancient 21st century thought it would be a good idea to leave this mess for us to clean up."

The idea is that when you inject the carbon dioxide that it will react with water to form carbonic acid. This can then form carbonate or bicarbonate salts with available alkali metals. This will now allow (in theory) a new carbon source to enter the natural carbon cycle. People are proposing that the carbonate and bicarbonate salts are environmentally benign so it shouldn't affect things detrimentally.

CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 + NaCl --> NaHCO3 + HCl --> carbon cycle

[Azure]

Other question I have.....how much storage do you need?

How many square feet do you need to store the emissions that Alberta puts out in one year?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But I thought global climate change had nothing to do with humans...

Like Bingo always says.....the answer is usually somewhere in the middle.

Even 'if' climate change had nothing to do with humans, and carbon emissions presented only 1% of the problem, there are still benefits in technology like this.

Its awesome to see Alberta be in the forefront of developing and trying to implement it.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Hopefully it will also lower water usage by eliminating the need for water injection.

I doubt it will have much effect on the use of water injection. In terms of production, the good thing about water injection is that since liquids cannot be compressed they are good for raising well pressure.

[SeeGeeWhy]

The company I work for is a working interest partner in the Weyburn CO2 flood and is running a CO2 pilot on one of our properties in Central Alberta. Ever since coming onto the company I thought that miscible flooding would begin to emerge as a lever that would crack open the CO2 commodity market, and give a real benchmark for taxation of emissions. Also, it does work.

HOWEVER, for every reservoir barrel equivalent of CO2 that you place into the reservoir in order to recover an extra barrel of oil that will eventually be used as fuel (i.e. combustion), you will be releasing a net volume about 3 times greater than you "stored" by running the flood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhance...t_EOR_projects

"Examples of current EOR projects

In Canada, a CO2-EOR project has been established by EnCana at the Weyburn Oil Field in southern Saskatchewan. The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2 and recover an additional 130,000,000 barrels (21,000,000 m³) of oil, extending the life of the oil field by 25 years [1]. When combusted, this extra volume of oil will produce nearly 60 million ton CO2, so in this case carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2. Since CO2 injection began in late 2000, the EOR project has performed largely as predicted. Currently, some 1600 m3 (10,063 barrels) per day of incremental oil is being produced from the field."

The oil & gas indsutry (and thus Alberta) will benefit from this technology, and people might buy this as a way we're doing things better, but it is not true. The fact remains that as long as we are reliant on fossil fuels for energy, we will not be reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2.

But they left out how much more energy was utilized?! (Or that you would be stuck with all of that original CO2?)

Assuming that our ability to utilize energy efficiently is increasing (it is) you will be getting the additonal benefit of the energy utilized from 130M barrels of oil AND the original fuels used to produce the original CO2, with the penalty being only the additional CO2 - assuming you didn't put that CO2 back in the ground too.

Still seems to me to be half as much C02 in the air with this technology?



Claeren.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

The company I work for is a working interest partner in the Weyburn CO2 flood and is running a CO2 pilot on one of our properties in Central Alberta. Ever since coming onto the company I thought that miscible flooding would begin to emerge as a lever that would crack open the CO2 commodity market, and give a real benchmark for taxation of emissions. Also, it does work.

HOWEVER, for every reservoir barrel equivalent of CO2 that you place into the reservoir in order to recover an extra barrel of oil that will eventually be used as fuel (i.e. combustion), you will be releasing a net volume about 3 times greater than you "stored" by running the flood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhance...t_EOR_projects

"Examples of current EOR projects

In Canada, a CO2-EOR project has been established by EnCana at the Weyburn Oil Field in southern Saskatchewan. The project is expected to inject a net 18 million ton CO2 and recover an additional 130,000,000 barrels (21,000,000 m³) of oil, extending the life of the oil field by 25 years [1]. When combusted, this extra volume of oil will produce nearly 60 million ton CO2, so in this case carbon capture and storage in combination with EOR leads to more CO2 emissions than without injection of CO2. Since CO2 injection began in late 2000, the EOR project has performed largely as predicted. Currently, some 1600 m3 (10,063 barrels) per day of incremental oil is being produced from the field."

The oil & gas indsutry (and thus Alberta) will benefit from this technology, and people might buy this as a way we're doing things better, but it is not true. The fact remains that as long as we are reliant on fossil fuels for energy, we will not be reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, the oil produced does creat more CO2, but that is oil that would not have been recovered from this field, and would have been made up for by burning oil from another source.

So does this mean overall that more C02 will be left in the atmosphere?

If you assume that we'll get off of the oil bandwagon before it runs out then overall consumption is the same, and any extra oil produced from this field can be assumed to be left in the gournd somewhere else, and we come out ahead by putting this C02 in the ground.

However if you assume we'll keep buring oil untill every last drop is recovred, and that miscible C02 floods allow for greater revocery, then yes it does mean an increase in C02, becasue overall more Oil would have been burned and more C02 relesed into the atmosphere.

As it is now, putting the C02 in the ground reduces overall emissions becasue our Oil consumption doesn't increase due to the extra oil flowing from this field, so we can say that the C02 going into the ground counts as a Net decrease in the ammount of C02 emmissions.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its awesome to see Alberta be in the forefront

I agree, not publized enough, but it still isnt as good as a carbon Tax!! Like the foward thinking BC gov!~

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I've heard of this before, and I have a question.... what happens to the CO2 once its stored? Does it break down into carbon and oxygen molecules, or does it just sit there?

Because if it just sits there, aren't we simply passing off today's issues onto future generations? The only difference is instead of the effects being seen in 50-100 years where the future generations can say "great-grampa Ken was a jerk for leaving us the CO2", now it will be left for hundreds or thousands of years where documentaries will be saying "nobody knows for sure why the people of the ancient 21st century thought it would be a good idea to leave this mess for us to clean up."

I'm in the industry and familiar with the concept of this, but I too am unclear about the long term ramifications. Wasn't it thought a good idea to bury radioactive waste at one point too?