Michael writes in an earlier email that "These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table." I know a little about CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then we've got a problem. Oil/gas, coal, and power plants do not neatly overlap, so if fracking comes at the expense of CCS, we could see conflicting interests within the broader resource extraction industry.
Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike > > We could be picky about our trenches. We do not have to be all that > deep, only about 700 metres. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > Institute for Energy Systems > School of Engineering > Mayfield Road > University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > Tel +44 131 650 5704 > Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > On 02/06/2011 17:00, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > > > > But aren't deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject > > to rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan? > > > Mike > > > On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Hi All > > > I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural > > gas then they should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this > > argument would be changed by fracking. > > > However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is > > higher than that of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression > > with it and then cover the CO2 puddle with a material which > > prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the sea water then > > most of it should stay put. The cover could be a layer of liquid > > with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and very > > low miscibility with both. This would allow it to self repair. > > We could also stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to release > > some in order to offset Lowell Wood's overdue ice age. We need to > > look for deep depressions close to where CO2 is being produce or > > could be concentrated. > > > I did suggest this in a previous contribution to the blog quite > > a while ago but I think that it sank without trace. This is what > > we want for the CO2. > > > Stephen > > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > > Institute for Energy Systems > > School of Engineering > > Mayfield Road > > University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL > > Scotland > > Tel +44 131 650 5704 > > Mobile 07795 203 195 > > www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>> > > > On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote: > > > Michael raises the crucial issue: */Should the oil and gas > > industry be relied upon at the geological time scale needed > > for massive CO2 sequestration? > > > /*There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 years > > ago, made by his group at UCI, of the methane content of air > > across Texas & Oklahoma. /He found no difference in methane > > levels in cities vs oil fields and farms. > > / > > He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings > > that yielded no oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were > > leaking methane into the air. No one has contradicted this. > > > That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to > > working on CROPS, where we know it takes ~1000 years to return > > to the atmosphere. > > > Gregory Benford > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes > > <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Folks, > > > After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking > > into the methane release being caused by "Fracking". Here > > is a link to a resent film on the subject. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8If you are > > interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage > > you to take the time to view this film. I do realize that > > any "media" based documentary is subject to dispute and > > debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 reasons. > > > 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed > > for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly > > taking that option off the table. I have never believed > > oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this > > type of information should raise profound questions about > > the entire concept of geological CO2 sequestration. > > > 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread > > use of this drilling method can equal all other > > anthropogenic GHG sources at the regional level. > > > Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. > > And, oil field CO2 sequestration is in direct opposition > > to the current oil and gas industry activities. I believe > > the question of; */Should the oil and gas industry be > > relied upon at the geological time scale needed for > > massive CO2 sequestration?/*, should be asked. The issue > > of fracking related pollution is important and should not > > be ignored. However, the issue of paying this industry to > > provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be > > viewed with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car > > salesmen. I do apologize to all used car salesmen for the > > comparison. > > > Thanks for your patience. > > > Michael > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
