Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I sort of hate to keep this going but Salty has made some statements here that --while not totally untrue -- are extremely incomplete.
Do we have technology to capture, remove, and inject CO2 into formations???
Yes, we do!! And guess what --- we've had it for many years!! CO2 has been used for many years on a limited basis for injecting into petroleum reservoirs to try to attempt increased oil displacement efficiency. Theoretically, it works very well. In practice, the negatives make it a very risky proposition, so the candidate oil reservoirs where it has a real chance are very limited.
My own company was the pioneer in use of this technology. And for whatever reason, I became one of the company's experts on use of this technology. I was the SACROC (giant oilfield in West Texas) Unit Reservoir Engineer when we implemented --- back in 1972 -- what is still the world's largest injection program of CO2. I was responsible for this project!! So I do have a bit of first hand experience in this area.
1. Capture and removal of CO2 from plant exhausts is very expensive. This is how we got our CO2 -- from gas processing plants in the VAl Verde Basin of Southwest Texas. Just ot get the CO2 to SACROC, about 200 miles away, we had to build a special pipeline that cost over $200 million in 1972 dollars!!!!
2. Transporting CO2 in any meaningful volumes is also very expensive. The pipelines and comprressors have special requirements that make them several times the cost of normal units.
3. CO2 injection wells have to have special -- make that stainless steel -- tubing to resist the severe corrosive and scaling effects of CO2 on metal. Extremely expensive. Preparing and installing the special equipment for the injection program itself cost over $ 500 million in 1972 dollars!!!!!!!
4. Finallly, you can't just "inject" a fluid into an underground reservoir indefinitely. If you inject on one end without taking something out on the other end --- guess what ??? ---- the pressure keeps increasing. That's why we poor ignorant petroleum engineers go to so much trouble to make sure we balance the stuff in with stuff out ( along with all the neat thermodynamic and fluid dynamic problems inherent in this) to keep the process working.
So, in spite of what Salty read in a National Geographic written by a person with absolutely no real experience in this area, this idea of "getting rid" of CO2 by "injecting it into brine fromations" is so comical. The cost of doing this would be so monumental that it would dwarf all the money that's ever been spent in the entire petroleum industry!!!!!
SACROC still operates today and everything associated with it is expensive in 2005 dollars!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I have read the first three pages of this currently 12-page thread. Good Lord!
I'll read some more in a day or two.
I think most people at least agree that we beat North Texas today. YahOOOOOOOO! 3-3 It is easy to be humble when you are struggling to reach 9-3 but it remains possible!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I sort of hate to keep this going but Salty has made some statements here that --while not totally untrue -- are extremely incomplete.
Do we have technology to capture, remove, and inject CO2 into formations???
Yes, we do!! And guess what --- we've had it for many years!! CO2 has been used for many years on a limited basis for injecting into petroleum reservoirs to try to attempt increased oil displacement efficiency. Theoretically, it works very well. In practice, the negatives make it a very risky proposition, so the candidate oil reservoirs where it has a real chance are very limited.
My own company was the pioneer in use of this technology. And for whatever reason, I became one of the company's experts on use of this technology. I was the SACROC (giant oilfield in West Texas) Unit Reservoir Engineer when we implemented --- back in 1972 -- what is still the world's largest injection program of CO2. I was responsible for this project!! So I do have a bit of first hand experience in this area.
1. Capture and removal of CO2 from plant exhausts is very expensive. This is how we got our CO2 -- from gas processing plants in the VAl Verde Basin of Southwest Texas. Just ot get the CO2 to SACROC, about 200 miles away, we had to build a special pipeline that cost over $200 million in 1972 dollars!!!!
2. Transporting CO2 in any meaningful volumes is also very expensive. The pipelines and comprressors have special requirements that make them several times the cost of normal units.
3. CO2 injection wells have to have special -- make that stainless steel -- tubing to resist the severe corrosive and scaling effects of CO2 on metal. Extremely expensive. Preparing and installing the special equipment for the injection program itself cost over $ 500 million in 1972 dollars!!!!!!!
4. Finallly, you can't just "inject" a fluid into an underground reservoir indefinitely. If you inject on one end without taking something out on the other end --- guess what ??? ---- the pressure keeps increasing. That's why we poor ignorant petroleum engineers go to so much trouble to make sure we balance the stuff in with stuff out ( along with all the neat thermodynamic and fluid dynamic problems inherent in this) to keep the process working.
So, in spite of what Salty read in a National Geographic written by a person with absolutely no real experience in this area, this idea of "getting rid" of CO2 by "injecting it into brine fromations" is so comical. The cost of doing this would be so monumental that it would dwarf all the money that's ever been spent in the entire petroleum industry!!!!!
Billpup, I got my information from the July 2005 issue of Scientific American in an article entitled "can we bury global warming?" It was written by a professor at Princeton University.
Obviously, using CO2 to represssurize old oil fields is entirely different than injecting CO2 into the earth to store it. Making comparisons between the 2 is hardly valid. Underground storage of CO2 is being performed today at the Salah gas project in the Algerian desert.
As for your comments regarding the cost of storing CO2, a coal gasification plant cost about $3 billion to build. Adding the equipment to store CO2 would probably not add more than 5% of the project cost.
Suggest you get up to date on this issue.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Billpup, I got my information from the July 2005 issue of Scientific American in an article entitled "can we bury global warming?" It was written by a professor at Princeton University.
Obviously, using CO2 to represssurize old oil fields is entirely different than injecting CO2 into the earth to store it. Making comparisons between the 2 is hardly valid. Underground storage of CO2 is being performed today at the Salah gas project in the Algerian desert.
As for your comments regarding the cost of storing CO2, a coal gasification plant cost about $3 billion to build. Adding the equipment to store CO2 would probably not add more than 5% of the project cost.
Suggest you get up to date on this issue.
people in academia often have a poor grasp of what it takes to make things work in the real world. if you inject co2 into the ground, it is going to increase the pressure and cause all kinds of problems. for one thing, much of it will find its way back to the surface. for another, you are going to run out of room pretty quick if you are injecting enough to make a real difference. finally, what kind of effect will it have geologically? will it increase volcanic activity? will it effect plate tectonics? i don't know if it would have any effect at all, but you better believe the people who are crying about global warming causing hurricanes are going to be the ones claiming that co2 injection causes tsunamis.
as for the cost of co2 storage, do you think storage is the only cost to consider? what about the cost (capital and operational) of separating the co2? what about the cost of transporting it to an injection site? what about the cost of the actual injection. if you want to see inflation out of control, just try to enforce this kind of thing in just one small sector of industry.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Billpup, I got my information from the July 2005 issue of Scientific American in an article entitled "can we bury global warming?" It was written by a professor at Princeton University.
Obviously, using CO2 to represssurize old oil fields is entirely different than injecting CO2 into the earth to store it. Making comparisons between the 2 is hardly valid. Underground storage of CO2 is being performed today at the Salah gas project in the Algerian desert.
As for your comments regarding the cost of storing CO2, a coal gasification plant cost about $3 billion to build. Adding the equipment to store CO2 would probably not add more than 5% of the project cost.
Suggest you get up to date on this issue.
Ah, Princeton...that explains the disconnect with reality...academia and real life problems rarely have little in common!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
You guys are grasping at straws. Next you will be saying that nano technology at LA Tech is stupid because the professors and researchers are all "academia." LOL!
I doubt if either two of you have ever visited Princeton.
Bob, you have a lot of really unnecessary questions. It ain't rocket science.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You guys are grasping at straws. Next you will be saying that nano technology at LA Tech is stupid because the professors and researchers are all "academia." LOL!
I doubt if either two of you have ever visited Princeton.
Bob, you have a lot of really unnecessary questions. It ain't rocket science.
You'd be wrong...I lived there for about 15 months...my folks lived there for almost 5 years.
I even have a couple of misguided cousins that graduated from there...but Jimmy and Jamie were misguided!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You guys are grasping at straws. Next you will be saying that nano technology at LA Tech is stupid because the professors and researchers are all "academia." LOL!
I doubt if either two of you have ever visited Princeton.
Bob, you have a lot of really unnecessary questions. It ain't rocket science.
and i doubt that professor has ever visited ruston. what's your point?
it ain't rocket science, but it is much more complicated than you think.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I heard Bush on TV some months ago acknowledge the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuel and reduce emissions to help stave off global warming. He has already switched. Somebody he trusts had to have explained it to him. I hope that person isn't being indicted or he might go back to his old belief!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Bob, isn't the marble effect FAT? Isn't lean meat better? The great thing about wild things is that the fat can be removed with the skin and guts and only a bit of Cajun spice and olive oil is needed to cook it to tender perfection.
I am amazed that people will buy beef with any sign of visible fat.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Good point, Bob. "We just have to get used to it and adapt."
To adapt we will need to do everything possible to conserve resources (protecting trees, water, air, etc., recycling, reducing reproduction to max of one per couple and hope plenty of people will forgo reproduction.
It can be adapted to, but technology must adapt to the need for that adaptation and stop finding more ways to waste resources and encourage waste.
The portion of the earth where a sustainable environment is even possible is decreasing!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aubunique
Bob, isn't the marble effect FAT? Isn't lean meat better? The great thing about wild things is that the fat can be removed with the skin and guts and only a bit of Cajun spice and olive oil is needed to cook it to tender perfection.
I am amazed that people will buy beef with any sign of visible fat.
i don't know what post you are replying to, but fat meat is MUCH better if it's well marbled. that's where all the natural flavor is! even visible fat is good if cooked long enough. nothing like a texas brisket smoked/roasted for 12 hours.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Ah, Princeton...that explains the disconnect with reality...academia and real life problems rarely have little in common!
I see that your beloved President Bush just appointed a Princeton professor to replace Alan Greenspan. What in the world was he thinking?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I see that your beloved President Bush just appointed a Princeton professor to replace Alan Greenspan. What in the world was he thinking?
yeah, salty, just because one of them is an idiot, they all are. riiiiight. :rolleyes4
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
yeah, salty, just because one of them is an idiot, they all are. riiiiight. :rolleyes4
:rolleyes4 :rolleyes4 :rolleyes4
