royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/ >From memory ocean storage was pretty safe in theory. Co2 and water dissolve together to create a mixture more dense than either.
The demo was pretty cool but I'm on my phone so I can't check if the video is still up. You can pester the lecturer for a YouTube video if you like What about earthquake, flood basalt, dissolution into subducting rock, etc? All a bit unstable and complex for my liking, those great lakes of co2 sitting down there. Plus, won't it turn marine snow into methane? A On 3 Jun 2011 12:52, "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Andrew > > The deep ocean seal I am postulating is a liquid with low miscibility > with both CO2 and sea water and a density between them. It should self > heal if punctured but could have quite a high viscosity. Whether or not > it will work depends only on current velocities. We need to know what > these are wherever the depth exceeds 700 metres and then see if such a > magic liquid exists. My guess is that it might work if the deep water > velocity was below 5 cm per second but we can test for this in small > tanks in the lab. I know that lots of places have velocities well above > this but perhaps not all. Like I said we can be picky about the places > we choose. Undisturbed ooze might be a good indicator. I would rather > have a small but defined leakage than something we thought was perfect > but which then suddenly failed, hence the need for self healing. > > Can you tell me any more about what was said at The Royal Society and > which date it was? Did anyone mention liquid sealing layers? > > 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 > > > On 02/06/2011 20:37, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> It's not that simple. This issue was covered at the royal society. >> >> If reserves are deep enough, they will be kept stable by pressure. As >> long as they're not perturbed and don't diffuse into anything, you >> should be ok. >> >> If you're relying on pressure containment, then fracking is a problem. >> However, the pressure reservoir is unstable anyway so why use it. Use >> a deep saline aquifer instead. >> >> I don't trust deep ocean disposal as there's no seal. The ocean is too >> dynamic to mess with in this way. Doesn't pass the gut feel test. >> Maybe that's voodoo engineering, but it's served me pretty well. Only >> useful as an emergency option, but the storage isn't the hard bit, as >> I see it. >> >> A >> >> On 2 Jun 2011 20:18, "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com >> <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > 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 <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com> >> > >> > >> > On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk >> <mailto: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 >> <http://195www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> >> >> >> >> 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 >> <mailto: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/%7Eshs><http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> >> >> > <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 <mailto: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 >> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@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 >> <mailto: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. >> >> >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > 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 >> <mailto: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. -- 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.
