Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization & Sequestration Technical Section

 View Only
  • 1.  Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-20-2016 09:26 AM

    Brian,

    Thank you so much for your post(s).  To begin with, you are exactly correct, the Earth’s climate is terribly complex.  That being said, we, in this forum, are not, as far as I can tell, climate scientists.  We are engineers and geologists striving to solve difficult problems with creative and sometimes non-traditional solutions through our unique understanding of flow through the Earth’s crust.  I look to climate scientists, like those at NOAA -- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ -- and others, to guide us on the relevancy of these technical positions and not petroleum engineers, geologists, or politicians, for that matter.  As for definitively proving what the impact of greenhouse gases does to our ecosphere, I really don’t think a sanitized tank experiment captures the true complexity that we agree exists.

    There are many historical corollaries to where we stand with climate science, particularly with its divisiveness.  I think back to atomic theory, the shape of the Earth, whether the Earth is the center of the solar system, dark matter, etc.  Each had their naysayers and each had their champions, while these debates waged on for tens to hundreds of years. In the end, there often was a scientific breakthrough or technological advancement that helped to definitely prove or disprove such a position.  At some point, and I hope it is sooner, rather than later, I hope we have a definitive conclusion to this complex issue, as well.

    That being said, while we await consensus, what organization is better situated to help provide subsurface solutions to climate scientists than the Society of Petroleum Engineers?  You’ve hit on one tenet of our platform, the “U” in CCUS.   Let’s use as much CO2 as we can for CO2-EOR.  If CO2 is required to be captured and/or abated, this volume will present engineering and geoscience challenges the likes of which we have never seen.  Oil fields could be the first offtake for injection, and I would argue storage happens during CO2-EOR via trapping, etc., but those areas of the World bereft of oil deposits may need purer forms of storage in depleted gas fields, coal fields, or saline formations.  I, too, believe the Society is well-positioned to provide support in these endeavors, as well.  This says nothing about surface transportation infrastructure that would be needed.  With that, I hopefully justify why we have a Technical Section that explores the issues of subsurface utilization and storage technologies for use to the Society as a whole.

    ------------------------------
    George Koperna
    Chair, CCUS Technical Section
    Vice President
    Advanced Resources International, Inc.
    ArlingtonVA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-20-2016 10:23 AM

    Thank you to Brian, Matteo and George for this important discussion. My own position is that our industry will have to innovate comprehensively in all areas, simply to survive as the world's economy changes. Regardless of our own individual "beliefs", enough serious scientists are concerned about CO2 levels and man-made climate change that we as engineers are obligated to consider carbon emissions as a design criteria when developing new processes and designing new facilities. Engineers like us do not determine the need – we find the solution.

     

    I think utilization, including EOR, is a great idea, and one that SPE engineers are uniquely equipped to carry out. We would be strong in storage as well – who else has the competencies in facilities, pipelines, compression, injection, drilling, and reservoir engineering / geology / geophysics?

     

    Carbon emissions are not a death sentence for the oil and gas industry – they are a design criteria, constraint or boundary condition. One I think we can solve – going forward –  now that we know we should.

     

    This section is needed to make sure the oil and gas industry continues to flourish for the next 100 years, and I am very glad it exists.

     

    Dan Burt, M.Eng., MSc., P.Eng.

    Suncor Energy

    Email dburt@suncor.com

     

    Read our 2016 Report on Sustainability: http://sustainability.suncor.com/2016/en/default.aspx

     




    ---------------------------------------------------------
    If you wish to no longer receive electronic messages from this sender, please respond and advise accordingly in your return email.

    This email and its contents are private and confidential, for the sole use of the addressees. If you are not an intended recipient, copying, forwarding or other distribution of this email or its contents by any means is prohibited. If you believe that you received this email in error please notify the original sender and delete this communication and any copies immediately.

    Petro-Canada is a Suncor Energy business.

    150 – 6th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3E3 (Corporate Head Office) / www.suncor.com

    ------------------------

    Si vous ne voulez plus recevoir de messages électroniques de cet expéditeur, veuillez l'en aviser en répondant à ce courriel.

    Ce courriel et son contenu sont privés et confidentiels, et sont destinés à l'usage exclusif des destinataires. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute reproduction, transfert ou autre forme de diffusion de ce courriel ou de son contenu par quelque moyen que ce soit est interdit. Si vous croyez avoir reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur original et supprimer cette communication et toutes ses copies immédiatement.

    Petro-Canada est une entreprise de Suncor Énergie.

    150 – 6th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3E3 (siège social) / www.suncor.com





  • 3.  RE: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-23-2016 01:32 PM

    George,

    Thanks for your reply.

    There is no such thing as a "climate scientist" that is not employed (and directed) by government.  There is no demand for it in industry. There is no valid evidence of man-made global warming or of the need or benefit of CO2 storage.  If you disagree, please answer my questions.  Professional engineers do not try to solve problems that can't be proven to exist.

    1. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating it?

    2. Why is there any concern over a claimed 1 degree temperature change in a century? (given the ice core data oscillations)

    3. Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage?

    SensorPx - A Simple Component of Probabilistic History Matching, Forecasting and Optimization

    Any response that ignores my questions and provide no valid evidence of their position is further proof of my claims.  Also, the PRMS rules and guidelines are not competent, so your storage definitions and guidelines have the same problem..  See Reserves Definitions.  Also see Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Modeling - P10 P50 P90 for the only known method to quantify uncertainty in production (or storage capacity), and the other examples given at SensorPx - A Simple Component of Probabilistic History Matching, Forecasting and Optimization.  The theory applies to any model with valid assumptions (which is generally a reservoir simulator).

    Best Regards,

    Brian

    ------------------------------
    Brian Coats
    President
    Coats Engineering
    Marco IslandFL



  • 4.  RE: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-24-2016 07:51 AM

    Hi Brian,

    The simple experiment showing heat absorption by CO2 was performed by John Tyndall back in 1859. He also measured the absorption of heat, or lack of it, though N2 and O2 and other gases and noted water vapour a strong absorber.

    There is a strong parallel between reservoir engineering and climate prediction; both use multicellular models with mostly simple physics (Darcy’s law, mass balance, PV=ZnRT etc) applied to the circumstances of each cell over time. Simple studies like Tyndall's are fine for calibrating the basic physics but the more accurate modelling arises from the behaviour of the assemblage as a whole. Would it not be likely that better climate predictions would be gained from such models? Your comments in the interesting discussion in this forum “Exponential Decline of Waterflood Production Forecast - Myth or Reality”  would seem to support this, unless I have misunderstood?

    Kind regards,

    Brian.

    ------------------------------
    Brian Moffatt
    Petroleum Fluids & PVT Consultant
    Petrophase Ltd
    Reading, UK



  • 5.  RE: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-27-2016 05:32 PM

    Brian, thanks for your excellent comments (as always).

    Can the results of the Tyndall experiment be used to quantify the greenhouse effect due to 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration? The premise of CO2 storage benefit is that global temperature is increasing due to this effect, and I don't think that's right.  So the experiment I suggested I think is needed to isolate and quantify that specific effect, unless we can somehow otherwise calculate or predict it.

    As I said here or in another discussion, I think that our main environmental problem is dumping of trash and toxic chemicals into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, and that might be the cause of increasing CO2 and decreasing O2. Estimates of the fraction of total O2 produced by marine plant life range from 55 to 85%.  A Scientific American article claims Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 and is consistent with other estimates that marine plant life has decreased 30% in the last 30 years (in exponential decline).  The article of course blames CO2 emissions but doesn't substantiate that.  So if we assume an average estimate of 70% of total O2 produced by marine plant life and say a 50% reduction in that life due to pollution of our waters, what would one expect to happen to CO2 and O2 levels as a result?  Is it unreasonable to predict that atmospheric CO2 levels could rise by about 1/3 (as a linear approximation)?  I had the idea of looking at the stoichiometry of the rates of change to see what reaction(s) might be responsible, but that doesn't work because the rate of oxygen decline is far greater than the rate of CO2 increase due to any possible reaction (photosynthesis or combustion).  My conclusion is that the ecosystem is unable to maintain O2 production because of marine toxicity increase, and also that you're right and the entire ecosystem (and solar system) has to be considered before any actual cause/effect relationships can be verified or modeled and predicted.

    Reservoir and climate models are or should be very similar. But a valid climate model would have to consider very many more complex biological and non-biological processes and reactions.  We all know that the models used by meterologists have trouble predicting the weather a week in advance let alone over decades or centuries of geologic time.  I have trouble believing in the existence of any climate model that even approaches the complexity of our reservoir models or that is capable of making any meaningful calculations or predictions, because to my knowledge no detailed formulation of them has ever been published, as opposed to our well-documented evolution of reservoir models.  I think that if one were published it would be an embarrassment compared to what the commercial reservoir modeling industry has achieved.

    And you’re also right of course about the parallels between this and other discussions, mostly regarding quantification of uncertainty in reservoir production (or storage), and use of the scientific method to substantiate or disprove claims and methods.

    Another useful experiment I think would be to test the ability of plankton to adapt to pH changes at the observed rate, to see if CO2 emissions could possibly be responsible for their decline, but that would take a very long time.

    This article quoting Peter Tatchell of The Guardian about decreasing oxygen levels is funny because it speculates that the decreased O2 concentration observed over large cities (15 vs. 21% overall) has led to man's decreasing intelligence because of oxygen deprivation to the brain. It also says that forest cover was twice as heavy 10000 years ago, and that oxygen levels in the Cretaceous era were 30+%.  It also discusses the ocean dead zones resulting from pollution that’s obviously killing the ocean:

      Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Are Dropping Faster Than Atmospheric Carbon Levels Are Rising - disinformation

    It makes sense to me, except for the (currently politically correct) part, partly blaming hydrocarbon combustion.

    Best Regards, and Happy Holidays,

    Brian

    ------------------------------
    Brian Coats
    President
    Coats Engineering
    Marco IslandFL



  • 6.  RE: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

    Posted 12-28-2016 04:31 AM

    Brian,

    Let me see if I understood correctly the multiple strands of your post:

    • Can we quantify the greenhouse effect from 100 ppm increase in CO2? It appears we can: e.g. a paper published in Nature by Feldman et. al. measures very accurately the infrared radiation emitted by a lot of atmospheric components that hits the Earth's surface (i.e. the greenhouse effect). This "radiative forcing" is the total amount of solar radiation that is not reflected or re-emitted into space and thus contributes to keeping our planet balmy. What has been measured tracks very well the predictions of a model based on atmospheric composition, even on parts of the spectrum where CO2 emissions dominate. So CO2, like a lot of other greenhouse gases, water vapor and particulate matter can indeed contribute to changing the energy balance of the Earth, even at 0.04% concentration, and does so in a  predictive way at the scale of a "voxel" of well-mixed air.
    • We are experiencing a global decrease in oxygen concentration. This is actually interesting and thought-provoking, but I'm not sure the situation is as dire as feared. The Guardian is the last bastion of intelligent liberalism (in the US meaning of the term) in the UK, but hardly a reliable fountainhead of truth; city dwellers may be stupid, but then why assessments of 15 year-olds by the OECD (PISA study) show stellar performance in mathematics by teenagers in such polluted (and oxygen-deficient places) like Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong perform much better than their peers in tree-studded places such as Switzerland, Finland or Canada? O2 concentration at 15% would mean symptoms we couldn't ignore long before our wits are stunted, an epidemics of doping red flags at every sporting events (from the spike in red blood cells), and the impossibility of performing confined space work without a respirator, given that the lower limit, routinely tested, is around 19%. There are lots of experiments that try to quantify how algae cope with increased temperature and lower pH (which does in corals and shellfish), although it seems the availability of nutrients is the dominant factor: that's why agricultural runoff causes phytoplankton to bloom, empties water of oxygen when the cells die and causes fish to suffocate.
    • Climate models and weather. Climate models are very complex, and the amount of cells they use for their computations (let alone the time scale) are staggering. I'm surprised the theory behind the different models out there is not publicly available in excruciating detail: after all it's a scientific endeavor, and not a commercially-driven enterprise like reservoir simulation, with its share of snake-oil peddlers hiding behind trade secrets and claiming that their approach works anyway. But there is a deeper analogy here: you mention errors in weather forecast at a particular place a week hence. Yet weather is not at all the same as climate, with the latter hopefully averaging away seasonal changes, periodic fluctuations (say, El Niño or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and all noise associated with "will it rain when I'm out camping?". Reservoir modeling is not so different: inhomogeneous rocks are terrible when your only high-resolution eyes are 8½" wells. And when you have spatial correlation (say a fluvial channel environment) to make it worse, your ability to predict pressure and saturation exactly at any point of your reservoir is not particularly good. However you can do two things: grasp fo geostatistics (I've seen distributions being built with far less run than climate models, by the way), and rely on integrated quantities and conservation laws (say, volumes or well testing interpretation) that smooth out local unknowns. Climate models are not too different. What's more, they already include a lot of contributions from the biosphere. So how good are climate models in predicting change 100 years from now? They are not too bad, and getting better all the time: they routinely backcast and verify all their assumptions and constants, and design experiments to plug their holes.

    Best regards,

    ------------------------------
    Matteo Loizzo
    Well integrity consultant
    Berlin