To curb greenhouse gases, put them underground

DOHA, Qatar--Tony Espie, storage technology manager for BP Exploration, believes one of the primary tools for solving global warming lies beneath our feet.

Storing carbon dioxide in underground caves that once held oil and gas is shaping up to be one of the more promising techniques for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that get pumped into the atmosphere, he said during a presentation at the International Technology Petroleum Conference taking place here this week.

"Gas fields have the attraction of natural seals. They have held gasses for millions of years," Espie said. "Storage in geological formations is one of the cheapest options."

Trials for the concept are already under way in Algeria and Canada. Commercial development could begin within the next five years. Ideally, storage facilities would keep carbon dioxide underground for at least 1,000 years and hopefully 10,000 or more.

The carbon problem comes as a direct result of fuel consumption. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide has increased dramatically, paralleling a spike in global temperatures, Espie said. In the 20th Century, average temperatures rose about 0.6 degrees Celsius. While that doesn't sound like a lot, scientists say that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius will cause significant disruptions to water supplies and agriculture.

Currently, about 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide are injected into the atmosphere each year, of which about 7 billion tons make it into the atmosphere. That's close to the maximum, Espie said.

Fossil fuel demand, however, is rising rapidly too. By 2050, the emissions figure will double if preventative action isn't taken, according to Espie.

"By 2050, storage could provide about half of what is needed," he said. The other half could be accomplished through storing it in underground deposits of saline water.

Carbon storage involves a two-step process. First, carbon should be sequestered during the combustion process, either through industrial scrubbers or technologies like oxyfuels. With oxyfuels, fuel is ignited in a pure oxygen environment, rather than in air, which contains nitrogen. The reaction leads to wet carbon dioxide.

The carbon dioxide can then be compressed and stored. In some nations, the cost could be subsidized under an emissions credit plan. Carbon dioxide storage could also be used to extract more oil out of depleted fields; by pumping in C02, the added pressure would force out remaining oil that's been otherwise difficult to extract.

Significant risks, of course, exist. A rupture in an underground cavern can lead to a bubble of carbon dioxide. If people were to walk through the bubble, they would probably die of suffocation, Espie said. That problem, however, is fairly localized. Sensors placed in the area can provide some warning.

A large earthquake could also create a fault that would let carbon dioxide escape over a broader area. "In that case, you'd probably have to take the CO2 out," he said.

If the gas escaped into a water supply, the result would be carbonated water, but health officials would be concerned about any deleterious chemical reactions.

Still, the geochemical and geophysical data show that the concept has promise. In some cases, carbon dioxide storage could prove beneficial by redistributing minerals and making the cavern stronger, Espie said.

The biggest roadblock ultimately could be public acceptance of the idea. To that end, he suggested the industry share the data of these projects.

Administrative bodies also need to be created. Companies don't last 1,000 years, he said.

More from News.com on this story's topics

R&D

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
carbon, atmosphere

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 22 comments (Page 1 of 2)
CO2 Sequestration
by Roy Stewart November 21, 2005 12:51 PM PST
The 'Oxyfuels' aspect seems a very attactive
alternative.
Combustion with Pure Oxygen significantly increases of fuel efficiency, and eliminates formation of NitrousOxide.

. . . carbon should be sequestered during the combustion process, either through industrial scrubbers . . .
What is the purity of the Carbon extracted via 'Industrail Scrubbers'?
What is the cost/efficiency (quantity of Carbon removed) via 'Industrial Scrubbers'?

Our 'Air Quality' is not improving!

Compare The cost of:
'Doing Nothing'
To the 'probable' catastrophic results of doing nothing; especially if human activity is precipitating the apparent alteration of Our Global Climate!

Roy Stewart
Phoenix AZ
irjsiq@gmail.com
Reply to this comment
No caves, no caverns
by thalen November 21, 2005 1:28 PM PST
"Storing carbon dioxide in underground caves that once held oil and gas is shaping up to be one of the more promising technique ..."

Wrong, there are no caves or caverns or other large void spaces underground. This is a common misconception and CNET should not contribute to its spread.

Underground oil and gas are trapped in relatively porous rock formations, such as sandstone, capped by impermeable rock. When tapped by a well, these materials -- under the weight of the earth -- are forced into the well and up to the surface, but they leave behind the porous rock, as well as residual gas and oil. Carbon dioxide pumped back into these formation would presumably also be trapped by the impermeable rock.
Reply to this comment
Probably Another Oil Company Scam
by flopster325 November 21, 2005 3:37 PM PST
My favorite part of the article was that very short line in the middle
saying that this technology will also pump out more oil. I wonder
why this BP scientist was studying this "environmental" project?
Sounds like a great way for them to get more oil and silence
critiques. Isn't there a big problem with the fact that if one of
these things break, a lot of things are going to die... possibly
humans?
Reply to this comment
Trees need carbon dioxide
by dshenry November 21, 2005 6:28 PM PST
Studies have shown that trees thrive on a carbon dioxide enriched environment. This means they produce more oxygen for people and other animals.
Reply to this comment View reply
This is lunacy
by R. U. Sirius November 21, 2005 10:16 PM PST
So THIS is acceptable?

> Significant risks, of course, exist. A
>rupture in an underground cavern can lead
>to a bubble of carbon dioxide. If people were
>to walk through the bubble, they would probably
>die of suffocation, Espie said. That problem,
>however, is fairly localized.


Great, "fairly localized" meaning if you're in a neighborhood where this is forced on you, your SOL.
Reply to this comment
I was wondering when they were going to get around to this.
by firebate November 22, 2005 6:39 AM PST
Personally I think that CO2 sequestration is the only intelligent option we have. Most oil deposits are significantly below ground and as pointed out earlier (in another comment) they are basically pourous rock with an impermiable rock covering. Nature is good at packing these gases away. In fact there are several CO2 fields in the southern central states already. (These are natural fields). As far as using the technology to recover more oil, it sure makes more sence (at least to me) then pumping our pottable water supply down the hole to bring the gas field pressure up. (SAGD- Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) SAGD water is not expected to be seen again for 80-100,000 years.

One comment brought up trees as a way to get rid of CO2. Recent studies I have read suggest that very few trees will adapt to higher CO2 levels by absorbing more CO2. Further, for the purpose of climate change, trees are considered very short term traps for CO2. Wood burns or decomposes releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere in short order.

Well thats my 4 cents worth (inflation)
Reply to this comment
Halliburton calling?
by Titos 2 Cents November 22, 2005 6:47 AM PST
I'm curious as to who would fund this. Would it be the oil industry, the most profitable subsidized industry in the world, or will we taxpayers hold both the 1000 year maintenance responsibility and purse strings as well? I'm guessing the latter if history is any measure.

What also seems to be missing is a realistic collection method. Any CO2 generation facility would likely be where higher concentrations of those gasses exist, but often those metropolitan areas are a great distance from the oil fields. The facilities would need to be able to trap an incredible amount of CO2 to make even a measurable dent in emissions levels. How will they be able to circulate "fresh" CO2-rich air to a facility in basin regions like LA, where a lack of currents are one of the problems to begin with?

Oxygenated fuels - that ought to work well, as long as we don't mind a fate worse than global warming. MTBE is a current additive used to oxygenate fuels to help reduce cold weather emissions, but it pollutes groundwater at extremely minute quantities, affecting both taste and odor, as well as being a known carcinogen. Pure oxygen is likely too dangerous to be widely available for public use (smoking next to the O2 tank - think it won't happen?), and fuels that generate their own oxygen are extremely toxic.

I'm not hoping for a miracle cure to our energy problems, free energy, or a magic wand for pollution, but there has got to be a better way to spend research money than this.
Reply to this comment
Hideously stupid idea
by aabcdefghij987654321 November 22, 2005 9:35 AM PST
Anyone recall the lake in Africa that "inverted" and released a huge amount of carbon dioxide a few years ago? Hundreds of people died and thousands of animals. I saw recently that lake is at risk of doing it again and how plans were being made to release the carbon dioxide from that lake in a controlled fashion to prevent another catastrophe.

Now imagine creating hundreds of new places where a catastrophic release of carbon dioxide were possible! This has got to be one of the worst ideas ever. If you want to sequester carbon dioxide then do it the way nature does by creating calcium carbonate.
Reply to this comment View reply
Technical BS
by Earl Benser November 22, 2005 4:45 PM PST
1. It will probably take as much fuel to collect the CO2 as is being
burned in the first place.

2. Oil companies would love to have the CO2 to pressurize their
fields and to enhance oil recovery. They win three ways - sell the
oil, store the CO2, and recover more oil.

3. The whole idea is just idiotic.
Reply to this comment View reply
Just put the CO2 back into the air where it came from
by lingsun November 23, 2005 3:14 PM PST
Just put the co2 back into the air where it came from in the first place. It will have the effect of increasing crop yields and help to prevent starvation in the third world.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
Report: YouTube to embrace preroll, postroll ads
Reviewers find iPhone 3G fast, pretty, and hungry
Bank of America may finally support Firefox
DreamWorks exec on why it bumped AMD for Intel
Hans Reiser likely to get reduced sentence
Most Popular Stories
Photos: Top 10 newly discovered species
T-Mobile rumored to be readying Android phone for 3G launch
3G iPhone up for grabs online--or is it?
Formula One design vet creating eco-smart city car
Geeks get a word in with Merriam-Webster
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (1.36%) 152.25 11,384.21
S&P 500 (1.71%) 21.39 1,273.70
NASDAQ (2.28%) 51.12 2,294.44
CNET TECH (0.97%) 15.41 1,604.34
  Symbol Lookup



advertisement
On TechRepublic: Hidden Vista tricks boost productivity
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CBS Interactive sites