countdowntothemeltdown.com

Everyone is talking about CCS today. It is probably the largest contribution that we can quickly make to the fight against GHG. I am amazed how the debate has been spun around by the industry to make it appear that we have to wait a decade or more before we can start large scale plans. The problem is one of definiton and not technology. The technology exists and is widely used throughout the world, by the oil companies which regularly inject CO2 into depleted fields in order to boost sagging production. We also have an abundant number of available sites, there are hundreds (probably thousands) of abandoned wells and unsuccessful drill holes which can easily be adapted for this purpose. The problem is caused by the fact that the two totally different facets to Carbon Capture have become so intermixed that the distinction has become blurred and misunderstood.

The two facets of Carbon Capture are Storage and Sequestration, which is why I prefer CSS over CCS for this mitigation option.  The distinction is based upon the two different steps used to achieve the goal of reducing emissions by storing CO2 underground.  It is important to distinguish between the two processes, because Storage is not the problem; although there are important concerns that can (and must) be adequately addressed, such as preventing and monitoring leakage.

Storage involves injecting CO2 it into a suitable area underground. Sequestration involves capturing CO2 during the production process, sequestering it, and then transporting it from one location to another for injection underground.

The oil companies are aware of the ease in which they can store CO2 during the production process. The Sleipner project in Norway’s North Sea, the world’s first commercial carbon dioxide capture and storage project, stores about one million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. The reason for Sleipner was pure economics: avoiding Norway’s carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

There is an excellent article on Sleipner in SEED. Global Climate Change and Energy : Case Study Sleipner—A CO2 Capture and Storage Project . 

The Sleipner field is in the North Sea, about 250 kilometers west of Stavanger, Norway. It is operated by Statoil, Norway’s largest oil company. The Sleipner field produces natural gas and condensate (light oil) from the Heimdal sandstones, which are about 2500m (8000-ft) below sea level.

To encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions, the Norwegian government imposes a carbon tax equivalent to about $50 per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere. To avoid paying this tax, and as a test of alternative technology, all of the CO2 extracted since 1996, when gas production started at Sleipner, has been pumped back deep underground.

 

It is not put back where it came from, because that would further contaminate the natural gas. Instead, it is put into a 200 meters thick sandstone layer called the Utsira formation, about 800 meters beneath the bottom of the North Sea. The Utsira formation contains no commercial oil or gas; like most rocks deep underground, it is filled with salt water. The Utsira formation has high porosity and permeability, so the CO2 moves rapidly sideways and upwards through the rock layer, replacing the water between the sand grains.

It is estimated that it would take about 600 billion tons of CO2 to fill all the pore space of the Utsira sandstone. That is equivalent to all the human made CO2 production for over 20 years, at current rates. It is likely that CO2 sequestration will continue at Sleipner long after the abandonment of the field as a hydrocarbon producer. The Utsira formation is just one of many similar deep saline aquifers around the world that could be used to help slow down or reverse the rate at which CO2 and other greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.

The Sleipner project is the first commercial example of CO2 storage in a deep saline aquifer, so there is a lot of interest from around the world in its success. In particular, scientists want to know how the CO2 moves inside the aquifer and if there is a risk that it could escape back to the surface.  

I did not find a single report of a leakage problem at Sleipner, which has been storing CO2 for a decade. The storage technology has proven to be reliable so that is not the issue, the issue is cost. Sleipner makes economic sense for it’s owner, Statoil, due to Norway’s Carbon Tax. Other companies are not experiencing similar pressures so they refuse to use the technology.

I support Carbon Taxes over Renewable Energy Credits (REC) because of the difficulty in monitoring and verifying whether these credits are valid. The European example has clearly illustrated the pitfalls to a REC approach, but it can (and should) play a key role. Sleipner is a perfect example of just how important a role Carbon Taxes can play in getting recalcitrant industries to clean up their emissions. This proven technology should be used in every oil and natural gas field, but the industry has to be forced to implement it.

Only a Stick and Carrot approach, where Carbon Taxes are the stick to beat the reluctant beast while Renewable Energy Taxes are the carrot to goad it along, will allow us to acheive widespread CSS within the next ten years. Reliance on one over the other is like getting into a heavyweight boxing match with one hand tied behind your back, you are doomed before you even start.

Watch for CSS Part Two - Sequestration: Much Easier Than You Think.