Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization & Sequestration Technical Section

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.

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,

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,

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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.

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,

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.