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.

---

No, Salty....... I suggest you try to understand that real world experience in this area ---which I have and you apparently don't ........ is worth more than speculation from academics. ( BTW, I'm an academic too, if the advanced degrees add up to that.) But the bottom line is that I have actually injected CO2 into .... as you call them .. "undergound formations" and I do know all the associated problems involved with it. This isn't speculation!!!!!!!!

As far as costs, please note that the figures I quoted for the SACROC project were in 1972 dollars. The cost of that single project today would be several billion. BTW, we did other CO2 injection projects as well. We also developed a CO2 production field in Mississippi from a ultra deep reservoir to produce pure CO2.

As far as .......injecting CO2 to repressurize old oilfields being different.... you simply do not know what you're talking about. It is not different!!! BTW, we don't inject CO2 to "repressurize old fields". Injecting CO2 for that purpose would be moronic. It is used in oilfields (not just old ones) because it has a unique ability to become miscible ( mixes completely with another fluid) with both reservoir water and oil. It significantly increases the displacement efficiency in displacing oil to the production wells in a carefully controlled scheme of where it is injected and where the production withdrawal points are, etc. etc.

The downside of it is that it is highly corrosive, causes huge scaling problems, and if not carefully controlled can open up "breakthrough channels" to the producers and cause otherwise recoverable oil to be left behind. It also contaminates the produced fluids meaning that special CO2 removal costs are high on the produced end. This is why it's not used just to "repressure" old reservoirs.

And the point I made about pressure problems is valid. If "stuff in" is more than "stuff out" (at reservoir PVT conditions) the pressure keeps rising. It's just plain elementary physics and thermodynamics!! And anyone who tells you otherwise, be it in Scientific American or wherever, is iether ignorant or lying!!
BTW, I read the same article in the SA that you mention, and noted at the time that the author was not seem very well informed in what he was writing about. But then, when did that ever stop "academics" from espousing on things they know little about??

Bill. suggest you write a letter to the SoA, or better yet write an article since you think that the concept is difficult and expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Bill. suggest you write a letter to the SoA, or better yet write an article since you think that the concept is difficult and expensive.

---

why should he? why in the world would they listen to some idiot "non-scientist"? the fact that that scientist would advocate such a thing shows that he has a blatant disregard (if not contempt) for common sense. there is no way no one has ever told the guy how unfeasable it would be. he chose to ignore the voice of reason and write his article anyway. he knows that the majority of the readers of scientific american don't know any better and would think he's a genius.

Bravo is trying to form as I type this, but don't worry, it is just a natural cycle and is in no way influenced by climate change due to man. I am sure the insurance companies may want to think about picking up the bill for CO2 injection. It may be cheaper than paying the claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Bravo is trying to form as I type this, but don't worry, it is just a natural cycle and is in no way influenced by climate change due to man. I am sure the insurance companies may want to think about picking up the bill for CO2 injection. It may be cheaper than paying the claims.

---

that would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. instead, they are trying to get industry to pay for part of the damages. they see it as a great way to use public perception to get them out of fulfilling their obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Bill. suggest you write a letter to the SoA, or better yet write an article since you think that the concept is difficult and expensive.

---

As a matter of fact I did write a letter to SA pointing out my concern. All I received back was a form letter thanking me for my letter and my interest in SA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

that would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. instead, they are trying to get industry to pay for part of the damages. they see it as a great way to use public perception to get them out of fulfilling their obligation.

---

Maybe I should have said FUTURE claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Maybe I should have said FUTURE claims.

---

see previous post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Pup60

As a matter of fact I did write a letter to SA pointing out my concern. All I received back was a form letter thanking me for my letter and my interest in SA.

---

Who knows, they may publish it in the future.

What the heck....live for today...let the future generations worry about the consequences of rising CO2 levels and the Greenland ice cap melting...booze, women, food and football is what is really important!!

And not necessarily in that order!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

What the heck....live for today...let the future generations worry about the consequences of rising CO2 levels and the Greenland ice cap melting...booze, women, food and football is what is really important!!

And not necessarily in that order!

---

Actually Salty, just for your information and those who don't know. This board was set up primarily as a sports message board. Only after several years of different threads turning political and getting off track did a politics folder develop. In fact, originally, the politics section was a completely different website. So, when we post on the politics section it is simply as a diversion to the athletic's portion of the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

What the heck....live for today...let the future generations worry about the consequences of rising CO2 levels and the Greenland ice cap melting...booze, women, food and football is what is really important!!

And not necessarily in that order!

---

there are three reasons your fearmongering will never get anything done:

1. there is not enough evidence that there is a problem to do anything about it.

b. the "solutions" to the problem only create more, worse problems.

iii. the first two pretty much cover it.

Beta has formed. I said Bravo earlier. Getting my Greek and military all mixed up.

The neverending thread!

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle322851.ece

Of course it will never end.......global warming is real and the evidence proving it will continue to grow and grow until the last naysayer finally yells "UNCLE!!"