|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45669
Location: Essex
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 04, 05 7:31 pm Post subject: Carbon burial 'is climate option' |
 
|
The UK's chief scientist, Sir David King, says petroleum companies should be looking more closely at the storage of carbon dioxide in ageing oil wells.
He told a climate conference in Exeter, organised by the UK Met Office, that the practice of carbon sequestration could help combat future warming.
Norway's Statoil company has buried CO2 under the North Sea since 1996.
But Sir David believed British firms were concerned about costs and were perhaps looking for tax incentives.
Nevertheless, he argued it was an option UK interests should investigate further.
"In the North Sea, we have got a range of oil wells that are running out," he told reporters in Exeter.
"And we've got all the machinery standing there right now. That machinery could be used for carbon dioxide sequestration experiments."
Making it pay
Statoil's experiment is centred on the Sleipner Field. Waste CO2 that comes up with the extracted methane is separated off and then pumped back under ground. It would normally be vented into the atmosphere.
Climate scientists generally acknowledge that sequestering carbon in this way can play a role in combating global warming.
One obvious limitation is it can only be used to trap and then store emissions from large point sources such as power stations.
I think the oil companies are looking for a tax saving, for a tax break on the oil produced
Sir David King
There are also concerns that the gas could eventually find its way back into the atmosphere, though research on the Statoil project shows that, so far, the carbon dioxide is securely stored.
The technology is available; the key question is cost.
Sir David King's concept could enable companies to generate extra revenue. They would use the pressurised carbon dioxide to pump out the last oil from ageing wells, which would be impossible to extract otherwise.
"In the experiments, pumping carbon dioxide down there, you could squeeze the remaining oil out to pay for the experiment," he said.
This is termed "enhanced oil recovery", and is beginning to come into use, notably in North America.
Trading scheme
UK oil companies remain unconvinced that sequestration is viable in the way that Sir David suggests.
Spokespersons from Shell, BP and the UK Offshore Operators Association, which represents UK companies extracting oil and gas from the North Sea, all told the BBC News website that there was interest in sequestration, but at the moment it was not a favoured option within Britain.
Sir David King believes there is a simple reason for their stance.
"In principle it should pay for itself, but I think the oil companies are looking for a tax saving, for a tax break on the oil produced," he said.
Companies declined to comment on this observation, but there are clearly logistical obstacles.
Many of the UK's large power stations and heavy industry are hundreds of kilometres from the North Sea oil wells, where their emissions would be stored.
The financial climate is also a key factor. Norway has a carbon tax, and Statoil would have to pay for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - storage is cheaper.
British oil companies and power generators are now members of the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which opened for business in January.
This means they will have to keep emissions below a certain target - which the government has yet to define - but they can use various methods to get there, such as improving energy efficiency, investing in renewable energy, planting forests, or buying emissions credits from other companies.
Sequestration is an option - but at this stage, British companies seem set to opt for cheaper ones.
Story from BBC NEWS:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4233011.stm
Published: 2005/02/03 13:23:07 GMT |
|
|
|
 |
sean
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42219
Location: North Devon
|
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45669
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
jema
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 28234
Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 05 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
Its not quite as simple as the article implies.
Yes, unquestionably minimising consumption of fossil fuels is "a Good thing".
No, there's no risk of rupturing the earth's crust.
And most importantly, this story looks like pure "spin" - dressing up a financial/tax/strategic position in green clothes.
The amount of carbon to be 'buried' is globally, industrially, minimal. That's not what this is about really.
Its about extending the life of oil production wells, and who pays for it.
If you take oil out of a deposit quickly, quite a lot gets left behind. But the oil company gets income SOON, to pay off their overdrafts, and reward shareholders.
If you take the oil out more slowly, you actually get more out in the end, but in the meantime your company doesn't look so clever financially.
So oil companies have offices full of clever geologists and accountants, constantly computing the optimum 'offtake' rates.
One of the technologies that has been used for many years is 'squeezing' out the left-behind oil by pumping water down below the oil.
The oil and gas is actually in the pores of rock. So it's quite plausible that a gas, like CO2, might have advantages over water in some geological situations.
But as the article explains there is another twist. Norway's carbon tax.
Statoil is working a field where there is a significant quantity of CO2 coming up out of the rock with the methane. Ordinarily, as the article suggests, they would just seperate this on the production platform, venting off the CO2 and pumping the methane ashore by pipeline.
*** But they were being charged carbon tax on this unwanted CO2 coming out of the well *** So they are experimenting with returning it underground, to avoid the tax, and increase the recovery and life of the field. But it costs money to do it...
And IMHO, it would be ridiculously expensive to collect CO2 at (say) a power station, and then send it out to a North Sea platform - but *recycling* any CO2 already available on the platform (like the Statoil project) would be comparitively cheap...
The oil companies don't want to spend money uneconomically. But the government has committed to CO2 control, and would like to see the yield and life of the North Sea fields extended as long as possible. So the industry is saying "make it worth our while", and the government is saying "don't wait for a tax incentive, be green, look good"... |
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45669
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45669
Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts