Oil companies to solve global warming?

[charrison]

linkage

An experimental project in Canada to inject carbon dioxide into oil fields has proven successful, removing 5 million tons of the heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, while enhancing oil recovery, the Energy Department said Tuesday.

If the methodology could be applied worldwide, from one-third to one-half of the carbon dioxide emissions that go into the atmosphere could be eliminated over the next century and billions of barrels of additional oil could be recovered, the department said.

The project is a joint effort by the Energy Department, the Canadian government and private industry. Carbon dioxide is piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, N.D., where it is a byproduct from coal gasification, to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.

"The success of the Weyburn Project could have incredible implications on reducing CO2 emissions and increasing America's oil production," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

Bodman, who is visiting the Middle East, said in a statement released by his office that if the process were used in all the oil fields of western Canada, "we would see billions of additional barrels of oil and a reduction of CO2 emissions equivalent to pulling more than 200 million cars off the road for a year."

...

n the Weyburn project, the carbon dioxide when pumped into the oil reservoir increased the pressure and brought more oil to the surface. It increased the field's production by 10,000 barrels a day and "demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of permanent carbon sequestration," the DOE said in a statement.

Since all this carbon came out of the ground, I guess it is logical we should put it back when we are done with it.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Springfield is actually saved by its own pollution, heh.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

I would not exactly call this dumping of waste as this is basically where it came from in the first place.

And yes industry is getting cleaner as we speak, even if you choose not to beleive it.

 

[ntdz]

Sweetness.

 

[MadRat]

And one day out of the ground came this giant belch and the people all suffocated under their own toxic cloud...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
Topic Title: Oil companies to solve global warming?
Topic Summary: increase oil production and decrease CO2

Your love for the Oil Barons is disturbing and sad 🙁

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MadRat
And one day out of the ground came this giant belch and the people all suffocated under their own toxic cloud...

Its happened before. CO2 buildup in lakes have killed many when they finally belched. One of thousands of links. Putting gaseous CO2 back under liquid doesn't sound like a great idea. Gasses will reach a saturation level in the liquid and will eventually come back up into the atmosphere. Instead, CO2 could be turned solid in a reaction and then the solid placed in old wells. I just don't know if that is an economically feasible method.

 

[desy]

Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada

My home town :beer:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

I would not exactly call this dumping of waste as this is basically where it came from in the first place.

And yes industry is getting cleaner as we speak, even if you choose not to beleive it.

Some corporations that actually care about the environmental impact of their activities are indeed getting substantially cleaner. Others merely toddle along on their coattails.

I actually welcome this advance but it's foolish to think it's going to be of significant utility in the near future. Why? Carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels . . . which means unlike the Weyburn Project that's capturing it from a plant . . . much of the world's CO2 is coming from cars (try and catch that) and coal/gas-fired powerplants (we know how much they are willing to invest to clean up the air).

 

[Todd33]

I thought global warming was a myth made up by evil liberal scientist? I love how the right can turn on and off their belief in science when it suits them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I thought global warming was a myth made up by evil liberal scientist? I love how the right can turn on and off their belief in science when it suits them.

Note the title is "global warming." They still don't understand that is global climate change. Then again it may just be a head fake. They will call it global warming for a few months and then claim global warming has been discredited by global climate change . . . but there's not enough proof yet for global climate change.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I thought global warming was a myth made up by evil liberal scientist? I love how the right can turn on and off their belief in science when it suits them.

I think most people can agree that we are better off letting less stuff escape smokestacks, the better off we all are. Is co2 the driving force behind climate change(water vapor and methane are bigger contributors and we have far less controll over those two gases), global warming or maybe even global cooling, that still remains an unknown.

 

[Stunt]

Motion to change title to:
"Canada to solve global warming?"

:beer:😀

PS. Good news charrison

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

I would not exactly call this dumping of waste as this is basically where it came from in the first place.

And yes industry is getting cleaner as we speak, even if you choose not to beleive it.

Some corporations that actually care about the environmental impact of their activities are indeed getting substantially cleaner. Others merely toddle along on their coattails.

I actually welcome this advance but it's foolish to think it's going to be of significant utility in the near future. Why? Carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels . . . which means unlike the Weyburn Project that's capturing it from a plant . . . much of the world's CO2 is coming from cars (try and catch that) and coal/gas-fired powerplants (we know how much they are willing to invest to clean up the air).

While a good portion is coming from tailpipes and a far larger portion is coming from smoke stacks of power plants. OF course you have never let your tailpipe emissions keep you from driving with a lead foot.

I do know you only beleive that only a horde of lawyers and draconian regulations will force companies to clean up, But you should know that this is false and that simple cap and trade programs quickly bring down pollution levels. The new cap and trade program put in place by the EPA is already starting to have big effect on scrubber installation. And it appears the coal gasification plants are headed for most future power plants builds as c02 is far easier to sequester from this type of plant. However you seem to want to ignore such progress as it is happening because the wrong party proposed these changes.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

1) where are they pulling the co2 from?
2) what happens when the gas finds a fault line or somehing and theres a burp? will a giant suffocating cloud come out of some guys household well?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
1) where are they pulling the co2 from?
2) what happens when the gas finds a fault line or somehing and theres a burp? will a giant suffocating cloud come out of some guys household well?

1) oil is energy intensive, you must use fossil fuels to extract the oil.
2) they are pumping it into past oil wells. If you know anything about the oil forming process, you'd know that oil is trapped within impervious rock formation, stopping it from seeping into soil, etc.

 

[sandorski]

Any CO2 that can be prevented from being exhausted into the atmosphere(to a point) is a good thing. This certainly won't solve the problem, but it's likely to be part of the solution of the problem.

I think some peoples concerns are certainly legitimate though. There is a potential steep downside to doing this that undoubtedly will cause some future chaos for some. It would seem wise to keep these sites away from population centers and to have active monitoring in place so that if something happens a warning can be issued.

If other actions are successful and CO2 emissions are reduced enough that Atmospheric concentrations begin to fall, there is always the opportunity to vent some of this stored CO2 in the future in order to avoid possible disasters. However, it'll likely be centuries before that kind of opportunity exists. Unless someone developes a process to convert the CO2 to something less harmful and at a affordable cost.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
1) where are they pulling the co2 from?
2) what happens when the gas finds a fault line or somehing and theres a burp? will a giant suffocating cloud come out of some guys household well?

1) oil is energy intensive, you must use fossil fuels to extract the oil.
2) they are pumping it into past oil wells. If you know anything about the oil forming process, you'd know that oil is trapped within impervious rock formation, stopping it from seeping into soil, etc.

1. It is from a synfuel plant. I assume one that turns coal into liquids or gas.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

I would not exactly call this dumping of waste as this is basically where it came from in the first place.

And yes industry is getting cleaner as we speak, even if you choose not to beleive it.

Some corporations that actually care about the environmental impact of their activities are indeed getting substantially cleaner. Others merely toddle along on their coattails.

I actually welcome this advance but it's foolish to think it's going to be of significant utility in the near future. Why? Carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels . . . which means unlike the Weyburn Project that's capturing it from a plant . . . much of the world's CO2 is coming from cars (try and catch that) and coal/gas-fired powerplants (we know how much they are willing to invest to clean up the air).

While a good portion is coming from tailpipes and a far larger portion is coming from smoke stacks of power plants. OF course you have never let your tailpipe emissions keep you from driving with a lead foot.

I do know you only beleive that only a horde of lawyers and draconian regulations will force companies to clean up, But you should know that this is false and that simple cap and trade programs quickly bring down pollution levels. The new cap and trade program put in place by the EPA is already starting to have big effect on scrubber installation. And it appears the coal gasification plants are headed for most future power plants builds as c02 is far easier to sequester from this type of plant. However you seem to want to ignore such progress as it is happening because the wrong party proposed these changes.

Well I tried to be nice but I see that such discourse isn't appreciated. The primary activity of the current political party running America into the ground has been to subsidize extraction industry and dramatically reduce pollution controls over point source emissions. Only the retarded call that progress.

A variety of people have advocated trading of pollution credits. Only the partisan tools believe it's some magical creation of astute Republicans.

wiki history

Emissions trading or marketable rights have been in use in the United States since the mid-1970s.
---
The United States began emissions trading after passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit.

I guess all those Republicans running Congress passed this legislation.😉

The Kyoto Protocol will bind ratifying nations to a similar system, with the UNFCCC setting caps for each nation. Under the proposed treaty, nations that emit less than their quota of greenhouse gases will be able to sell emissions credits to polluting nations.

But, but I thought Kyoto was evil?!

Curiously, the most significant gains in improving air AND water quality came from the "draconian" regulations authorized under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Unfortunately, the gaggle of lawyers is necessary to get the government to follow the rules . . . at least under current misleadership.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Springfield is actually saved by its own pollution, heh.

That was funny.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
PopSci had an article about this techology a couple of months ago. I think the Canadian project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility issues but the notion that it's permanent is quite suspect.

While it's certainly better than nothing but a "better" solution is to ultimately reduce emissions from all sources instead of looking for another place to "dump" our waste.

I would not exactly call this dumping of waste as this is basically where it came from in the first place.

And yes industry is getting cleaner as we speak, even if you choose not to beleive it.

Some corporations that actually care about the environmental impact of their activities are indeed getting substantially cleaner. Others merely toddle along on their coattails.

I actually welcome this advance but it's foolish to think it's going to be of significant utility in the near future. Why? Carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels . . . which means unlike the Weyburn Project that's capturing it from a plant . . . much of the world's CO2 is coming from cars (try and catch that) and coal/gas-fired powerplants (we know how much they are willing to invest to clean up the air).

While a good portion is coming from tailpipes and a far larger portion is coming from smoke stacks of power plants. OF course you have never let your tailpipe emissions keep you from driving with a lead foot.

I do know you only beleive that only a horde of lawyers and draconian regulations will force companies to clean up, But you should know that this is false and that simple cap and trade programs quickly bring down pollution levels. The new cap and trade program put in place by the EPA is already starting to have big effect on scrubber installation. And it appears the coal gasification plants are headed for most future power plants builds as c02 is far easier to sequester from this type of plant. However you seem to want to ignore such progress as it is happening because the wrong party proposed these changes.

Well I tried to be nice but I see that such discourse isn't appreciated. The primary activity of the current political party running America into the ground has been to subsidize extraction industry and dramatically reduce pollution controls over point source emissions. Only the retarded call that progress.


If the primary goal of this admin is subsidize the extractors, they are doing a poor job of it , judging by energy prices. Of course you fail to admit they have given subsidies to clean things like nuclear power, coal gassification, wind power and even hybrid cars.

You keep saying this, but you still have yet to offer any proof of it. THe new caps seem to be working as planned, emission controls are rapidly being install and pollution again will once take a big dive.



A variety of people have advocated trading of pollution credits. Only the partisan tools believe it's some magical creation of astute Republicans.

I never claimed it was created by republicans, buit it still remains an effective tool. Only partisan fools think such tools are innefective when implemented by the wrong party




wiki history

Emissions trading or marketable rights have been in use in the United States since the mid-1970s.
---
The United States began emissions trading after passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit.

I guess all those Republicans running Congress passed this legislation.😉

I am well aware of they history on emissions trading. It worked then, it works today. I dont think i have to make you look foolish again with a google news search on rising pollution credit costs and scrubber installs. Or do I?

The Kyoto Protocol will bind ratifying nations to a similar system, with the UNFCCC setting caps for each nation. Under the proposed treaty, nations that emit less than their quota of greenhouse gases will be able to sell emissions credits to polluting nations.

But, but I thought Kyoto was evil?!



Not evil, just terribly flawed. India and China are left out as they are most innefecient with their energy resources and are very major players in the pollution market. Also since russia had its economy collapse all they have to do is sell pollution credits. Fix these items and I more people will have much less problem with kyoto.



Curiously, the most significant gains in improving air AND water quality came from the "draconian" regulations authorized under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Unfortunately, the gaggle of lawyers is necessary to get the government to follow the rules . . . at least under current misleadership.

Those gaggle of lawyers have always been there. Complicated rules allows lawyers plenty of room to work. Simple cap and trade is far easier to implement and provide much incentive to companies to do the right thing.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude you really are simple.

It's pure idiocy to ascribe particular improvements in emissions to coincident trading systems when MANY gains in reduced emissions are a function older powerplants going offline.

Aside from Nixon's creation of the EPA, the Republican party has been the primary obstruction to effective legislation and regulation of clean air and water standards. Arguably, Bush41 deserves some kudos b/c his EPA at least enforced the law.

The primary reforms ushered in by Bush43 were to reduce industry compliance with the New Source Review. Such tactics were particularly problematic b/c the 11% under investigation for violations accounted for 24% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 27% of sulfur dioxide emissions from ALL fossil-fueled plants in the US.

From an energy supply/price perspective, a variety of factors contribute to our pinched supplies (typically regional) and high overall prices. It's obvious that one of the Bush adminstration's goals is to subsidize extractors . . . energy task force along with the annual idiot energy bills that came to Congress until passage this year under the auspices of increasing supply.

The subsidies to clean power (wind, geothermal, solar) and efficiency (hybrids, homes, etc) are tiny compared to subsidies to fossil fuels and nukes. Only the oblivious lump them together and then claim the Bush administration is "leading" us to greater supply and reasonable prices in an environmentally sound manner.

However you seem to want to ignore such progress as it is happening because the wrong party proposed these changes.

You are right, you didn't claim Republicans created pollution credits. But considering they were enacted by a Democratic Congress under a Republican President . . . it's kind of foolish to claim a particular party proposed it either.

I suggest you try reading google news search yourself. It's a cooperative, global marketplace of ideas and initiative that will lead to a productive AND environmentally sound world. The OP actually captures the ethos of industry working with various levels of progressive government to endeavor for the common good. Kyoto is indeed flawed but it is a step in the right direction . . . cooperative, introspective, and prospective. Sadly, some governments (including the world's worst polluter) don't have cooperative, introspective, or forwards thinking leadership. Fortunately, his disastrous term will end in Jan 2008.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude you really are simple.

It's pure idiocy to ascribe particular improvements in emissions to coincident trading systems when MANY gains in reduced emissions are a function older powerplants going offline.


And here we go again. While there is no doubt a old plant closing and being replaced by a new plant will cause a significant reduction in pollution in that area. You however keep ignoring the basic fact that the new pollution caps are causing power plants to install scrubbers all over the US. Installing scrubbers is now far cheaper than buying pollution credits.

You are still in denial about this. You also want to ignore that basic sox/nox scrubbers will remove a significant amount of mercury as well.





The primary reforms ushered in by Bush43 were to reduce industry compliance with the New Source Review. Such tactics were particularly problematic b/c the 11% under investigation for violations accounted for 24% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 27% of sulfur dioxide emissions from ALL fossil-fueled plants in the US.


and now pollution credits are causing them to install scrubbers rather than pay for lawyers. This seems like better solution if you ask me



From an energy supply/price perspective, a variety of factors contribute to our pinched supplies (typically regional) and high overall prices. It's obvious that one of the Bush adminstration's goals is to subsidize extractors . . . energy task force along with the annual idiot energy bills that came to Congress until passage this year under the auspices of increasing supply.



YOur right about that. natural gas is expensive because it burns clean and is used in many new power plants. Demand has gone way up, however many parts of US that are rich in natural gas are off limits to development, even though it could be done in a safe manner.

IF there is subsidy for the extractors it is not showing up for the consumers.




The subsidies to clean power (wind, geothermal, solar) and efficiency (hybrids, homes, etc) are tiny compared to subsidies to fossil fuels and nukes. Only the oblivious lump them together and then claim the Bush administration is "leading" us to greater supply and reasonable prices in an environmentally sound manner.


Sorry but wind, geothermal and solar are no where near being practical for power. They will be one day and wind is currently making great strides and hopefully will not need subsidies much longer.

And subsidies for nuclear power is a good thing.

However you seem to want to ignore such progress as it is happening because the wrong party proposed these changes.

You are right, you didn't claim Republicans created pollution credits. But considering they were enacted by a Democratic Congress under a Republican President . . . it's kind of foolish to claim a particular party proposed it either.


But that is exactly what you did. oh well.




I suggest you try reading google news search yourself. It's a cooperative, global marketplace of ideas and initiative that will lead to a productive AND environmentally sound world. The OP actually captures the ethos of industry working with various levels of progressive government to endeavor for the common good. Kyoto is indeed flawed but it is a step in the right direction . . . cooperative, introspective, and prospective. Sadly, some governments (including the world's worst polluter) don't have cooperative, introspective, or forwards thinking leadership. Fortunately, his disastrous term will end in Jan 2008.

In a few years(it is not far away) when china passes the the us in total pollution, maybe you see how flawed kyoto is at that point. The US is improving how it uses energy and the same cannot be said for china as it industrializing faster than it is cleaning up.


Is it still Bush's fault that kyoto was rejected by a democratic controlled senate 98-0 in 1998?