“The whole ”CO2-climate” idea is nothing but a clever concoction designed to lead to a global (UN-led) governance, destruction of western living standards, loss of private ownership, and – in the end – destroying mankind’s progress over the last millennia.”
– Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
The “Carbon Capture Syndrome” (CCS) — Part-2
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
The CCS needs to be examined more closely, particularly in view of a very recent paper with the title “Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward,” published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, available for free at https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2018/ee/c7ee02342a .
This 114-page report, authored by no less than 30 people from 20 or so research institutes, university departments, and companies also makes proclamations on such things as “key negative emission technologies (NETs)”, “bioenergy with CCS (BECCS),” and “direct [CO2] air capture (DAC).” Lead author is Dr. Mai Bui of the Imperial College London, UK.
The paper’s abstract states, inter alia: “Carbon capture and storage is broadly recognized as having the potential to play a key role in meeting climate change targets, delivering low carbon heat and power, decarbonizing industry and, more recently, its ability to facilitate the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.”
A second report, entitled “CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure,” published in 2014 by the IEA Environmental Projects Ltd. (IEAGHG) is another reference used here. This 147 page report is available at no cost from Global CCS Institute’s website at https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-18.pdf .
Please let me unequivocally state here, right up front, that both articles are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions need to be curtailed, or even “reversed” (by capturing any of the existing atmospheric CO2, currently at 0.04%) in order to “save the climate.”
I vehemently disagree with that notion. Therefore, this post, exploring the CCS proposal(s), does not at all imply any credence to the widely (UN-IPCC, NGOs, etc.) claimed CO2-climate connection.
In that, it’s the basic idea of communism, where “the common good” is above all other considerations. Of course, the term “common good” has a vastly different meaning to the elite and everyone else.
However, since much of the western world seems to be “hell-bent” to follow the path to energy-deprivation, along with carbon-capture and storage schemes, it is necessary to look at this idea a bit more closely.
Let’s start with the use of CO2 to achieve Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
The major industrial use of CO2 is as a tertiary recovery agent to increase oil production in depleting or old oil fields. For this purpose, the CO2 gas is typically compressed at a temperature above its critical point (31 C, or 88 F) that requires a pressure in excess of 73 BAR, or 1,100 PSI. As the industrial sources, like coal, oil or natural gas fired power plants are often considerable distances from the EOR oil fields, special CO2 pipelines are required to send that pressurized gas to the required location. The following table lists a selection of operating EOR systems in North America.
Table: Operating CO2-injection EOR facilities in North America. Data selected from Table 2, CO2 pipeline projects included in the assessment, IEAGHG, “CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure”, 2013/18, December, 2013; available at https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-18.pdf .
|Location / Name||Length [km]||Capacity [million tons/year]|
Actually, the original idea of using pressurized CO2 to enhance or extend oil field recovery rates dates back to 1950s or so. According to a detailed report by the US Geological Service of 2015, it is a very effective method to increase recovery rates by up to 50% compared to conventional methods, particularly of reservoirs below a depth of 2,000 ft.
The Reason for CO2-EOR’s Existence and Effectiveness
This CO2-enhanced oil recovery relies, primarily, on one important property of CO2, namely its full miscibility with crude oil (in supercritical state). In other words, it dissolves in the oil and thereby reduces the oil’s viscosity and increases its ability to permeate through the rock cavities and rise to the surface. That effect can lead to a substantial increase in oil recovery from otherwise depleted fields. Needless to say, that’s a great benefit to the producers and the world at large.
In addition, the CO2-EOR pressurizes the deep underground reservoir to increase the flow of oil.
Of course, this CO2-EOR technology was never intended as a permanent “CO2-storage” system. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for the CO2-EOR process to be touted as a poster child for the (supposedly) successful “carbon capture and storage method.” No wonder some anti-carbon folks think that the reason for the CO2-EOR’s existence to begin with was to sequester carbon.” In reality, that’s a false claim.
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.
Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.
Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org