Having large gas repositories under ground is not a big problem, considering we have them now, and mine them (natural gas). The problem is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to capture, separate and then pump the C02 underground. So, to 'save' the planet from co2, you are actually using WAY MORE energy. Where does this energy come from? Well coal plants and oil sands. It's a huge round circle jerk drummed up by environmentalists.

btw - i already posted the article here:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4

I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells.

In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions.

So at least in one scenario, the idea of carbon sequestration is working, which is why I feel the Canadian governemnt is looking at the idea. Just a tidbit for those of you actually interested in GHG (greenhouse gas) emmission reduction.

Cheers.

P.S. - If I find the article later today, I'll be sure to post it.

quote:

Originally posted by The Ear I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells. In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions. So at least in one scenario, the idea of carbon sequestration is working, which is why I feel the Canadian governemnt is looking at the idea. Just a tidbit for those of you actually interested in GHG (greenhouse gas) emmission reduction. Cheers. P.S. - If I find the article later today, I'll be sure to post it.

See that would actually make alot of sense. Reduce costs AND save the environment... If you find it let me know, that sounds really interesting!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The Ear I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells. In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions.

Using the extra CO2 to increase pressure in old wells is a great idea, but it hardly reduces costs in every situation. A coal plant would have to use 10-15% of its total energy output just to sequester the CO2.

Boo to man made global warming and the bogus laws being pushed on us.

BTW - I am getting my info and numbers from my room mate, who is doing a massive efficiency study for his masters on the oil sands, and all these processes. (soon to be published!)

Still can't find the original article, but here are a few others I've come across while looking for it that pretty much convey the point of the original article.

quote:

from Environmental Science and Technology online Large carbon sequestration project planned to enhance oil recovery Energy companies Statoil and Shell are planning to build a gas-fired power station in Norway and channel the CO2 emissions into offshore oil fields to enhance oil recovery. The partners claim it would be the biggest scheme of its type in the world. Under the plan announced in March, CO2 would be captured from an 860-MW gas-fired power plant to be built at Statoil’s Tjeldbergodden (Norway) methanol complex. CO2 emissions from the plant—2–2.5 million t-CO2/yr—would be piped to Shell’s Draugen oil field and to Statoil’s Heidrun oil field, both off the coast of Norway, and then injected into subsea reservoirs to force oil to the surface. (The operators currently use water for this purpose.) The companies say that this operation would increase energy production in Norway while lowering the country’s CO2 emissions. However, they also admit that their plan is technologically and commercially challenging and depends on substantial government funding and involvement. They estimate the project will cost $1.19–1.49 billion. If they secure all the necessary funding and approvals, construction of the power plant could start in 2010, with the first CO2 being delivered as early as 2011. Although Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy has praised the plan, she has not yet committed any funding. “This is a good example of industry responding constructively to political signals,” she said in a statement. “The Norwegian government has made it clear that carbon capture is a prerequisite for any new concessions to build gas-fired power stations.” The Statoil–Shell partnership comes at a time of heated political debate in Norway over whether to build gas-fired power plants. At present, the country generates almost all its electricity at hydropower plants, but little further expansion is possible. However, Norway is one of the world’s largest consumers of electricity and, with demand still growing, the government is looking for other energy sources that will find favor with its environmentally conscious population. Gas-fueled power linked to carbon sequestration is one such solution. Currently, Norway has no traditional gas-fired power plants. Some environmental groups, such as the Bellona Foundation, support this approach and have welcomed the Statoil proposal. Diana Wallis, a member of the Bellona Foundation and of the European Parliament, says that CO2 capture and storage offer great opportunities to reduce emissions. However, Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace Norway points out that the overall balance of carbon emissions from the scheme will be higher because more oil will be produced and burned. Greenpeace is skeptical about CO2 capture projects in general. “We believe money is better spent unleashing the energy-efficiency potential, supporting renewable energy solutions, and implementing low-energy solutions,” Gulowsen says. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Department of Energy released a series of reports in February claiming that the development of new CO2 capture and sequestration for enhanced oil recovery could more than quadruple U.S. domestic oil production. About 30 million t of CO2 is already used to boost oil recovery from onshore oil fields in Texas every year. —MARIA BURKE

quote:

from CICERO - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo Statoil claims it could sequester all of Europe's CO2 emissions under North Sea Norway-based Statoil is projecting that all of Europe's carbon dioxide emissions could be stored in an undersea aquifer beneath its Sleipner platforms in the North Sea. The company would need to build the appropriate infrastructure in order to store greenhouse gases underneath the platforms, 200 miles off the Norwegian coast. The platform provides methane to countries throughout western mainland Europe and can export 20 million cubic meters of gas per day. Currently, it stores around 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. "There are calculations that say it could handle all of Europe's CO2 emissions for several hundreds of years," said Statoil's Senior Vice President for the Environment Tor Fraeren. "It could all be handled by this reservoir. I hope that during these hundreds of years we could solve the CO2 problem in a more efficient way, but we have the potential here to store it." Sequestering carbon dioxide deep below the ground could cut global emissions by 20 to 40 percent between now and 2050, according to a U.N. commissioned report. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the world scientific authority on global warming - commissioned the report in 2003. The report found that between 220 and 2,200 billion metric tons of CO2 could be economically stored underground in geological structures such as empty oil and gas fields and also in deep oceans between now and 2100. The process could cost anywhere from $15 to $75 per metric ton of CO2, the IPCC estimated. U.K. officials already are dedicating funds to CO2 sequestration, having announced last year that they will spend £25 million on a carbon sequestration plan in the North Sea to help mitigate the effects of climate change (Greenwire, Sept. 20, 2005). "We are also modeling how the CO2 behaves in the long term," Fraeren said. "What we are seeing in that modeling is that it will stay down there, and it will be safely stored there for generations" (BBC News, Feb. 21).

Also, on quick perusal of other articles, Statoil has been doing this since 1996 for 2 reasons: 1) Tax Deduction and 2) to pressurize the wells.

Anyway, my self allotted lunch break is up. I'll try a little more sleuthing to find the original article later.

Cheers!

So instead of reducing carbon emissions, we're just finding new places to put them. Nice.

No chance of this going wrong...

___________________
If you can't be good, be careful.

"Hey look, I can make a heart-shape with my hands!!!" So Fucking what? Stop it. You're a douche.

When life gives you lemons, squirt the juice in the eyes of your enemies.

I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun!

Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun! Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion.

Lol... That sounds like a good solution to me..

quote:

We believe money is better spent unleashing the energy-efficiency potential, supporting renewable energy solutions, and implementing low-energy solutions

Given the arguement about more oil being consumed and thus more carbon emissions in the end I think I agree with this statement...

So why doesnt someone just, I dunno, fill the ocean and stuff with wind turbines? I don't understand why Dalton McFuckTard is openeing a coal-fired power plant in my backyard.

___________________

orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2.

Agreed, and I already thought of that. Honestly, I am just against the whole thing because I do not believe in man made global warming

So IMO any energy you put into capturing CO2 is wasted, regardless of that source (coal, nuclear, donkey)

gov't = shinra

___________________
open your mind a little too much and your brain will fall out.