@ssteingraber1.bsky.social Jul 3, 2025:
Basically, turning spongy underground rocks into warehouses for the eternal storage of Houdini-like greenhouse gases so we can continue to burn fossil fuels instead of investing in renewable energy is
1) terrible engineering;
2) unaffordable;
3) unsupported by science or economics;
4) evil
@revastein.bsky.social:
Of course it would be better for us all to stop/ severely cut back on using oil & gas!
@ssteingraber1.bsky.social:
It is in fact the only meaningful solution. There are no others.
but reducing pollution does not make the raping rich more $millions, and they have all the power and are insatiable
@ssteingraber1.bsky.social:
The U.S. is doing exactly this—with taxpayer dollars. It has nothing to do with protecting the climate and everything to do with keeping the fossil fuel party going.
And please look again. CCS operations produce more CO2 than they capture.
@TRyanGregory:
I’m not saying that Carney is just here to make massive transfers of public resources to the private sector. I’m saying everything he has done so far is indistinguishable from that being the case.
No one could have foreseen this.
Reminder that carbon capture is a bullshit diversion aimed at allowing oil companies to continue doing what they want.
MUST Watch 4 Min clip, Liar liar liar Nazi Pants on fire!
NaZiP (pronounced Nazi-Pee instead of YouSeePee) Minister Sigurdson and Premier Smith lie to a Highwood and Southern Alberta audience by The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy, July 5, 2025
@tangibullah.bsky.social:
Not even gaslighting, just outright lying.
The Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation and Premier Danielle Smith gaslight an audience of more than 200 in Okotoks, Alberta. Presenting their Rube Goldberg “decarbonization” machine to address a problem they don’t believe in with their fake solutions of carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, and new Canadian pipelines to markets that do not exist.
Ottawa spending $21.5-million to develop five Alberta carbon-capture projects by Jeffrey Jones, July 4, 2025, The Globe and Mail
The federal government is spending $21.5-million for the development of five Alberta carbon-capture projects, technology it says will help bolster Canada’s position as a major energy producer.
The money will go to a variety of technologies for capturing carbon dioxide, such as mapping underground formations for storage as well as modifying diesel engines, as Ottawa and the Alberta government discuss their “grand bargain” – developing projects to lower carbon emissions as a way to win public support for expanding oil and gas export capacity.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has emphasized increasing Canada’s stature as an energy superpower
to help rich polluters pollute us more, profit rape more, and get money for nothing from taxpayers and reducing its reliance on the U.S. market for exports. His government’s recently passed Bill C-5 is aimed at accelerating the development of major projects across the country.
Carbon capture, utilization and storage developments are key to making that a reality, says Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson.He and Carney are Douche Fucking liars, like Trump, Danielle Smith, and Encana’s ex CEO Gwyn Morgan
“The real challenge is not whether we produce, but whether we can get the best products to market before someone else does,” Mr. Hodgson said in notes to a speech he was scheduled to deliver Friday at the site of a project being developed near Cochrane, Alta., west of Calgary.
2014 03 12: Cochrane Inner Pipeline Gas Plant Non-compliant Pollution, of course AER, the so called energy regulator enables deadly harms by oil and gas and frac
“That means working with our energy sector togive them $billions we steal from hard working Canadians to give to polluters as lovely gifts to make the rich richer and for us to use to lie to and con the public into thinking we are reducing emissions when we are actually massively increasing them via CCS (carbon capture produces more CO2 than it captures and is hideously uneconomical) too allow fossil fuel profit rapists to keep raping Canadians and polluting the world, and destroying earth’s livability. We corrupt politicians love CCS because it’s a glorious super polluting life-threatening fuck the citizenry scam! make investments that fight climate change, so we can reduce carbon emissions and bring the lowest-cost, lowest-risk, and lowest-carbon products to domestic and international markets – like we have just seen this week, with the momentous opening of LNG Canada Phase 1,” he said.
That liquefied natural gas development, located in Kitimat, B.C., exported its first shipment to Asia after seven years of construction. The country’s natural gas industry sees the project as a boon and a future driver of higher prices for the fuel.Canada is following in the idiotic footsteps of Australia – after LNGing their natural gas to foreign markets, natural gas prices shot through the roof for ordinary Australians, and now the idiots there are importing gas from away and paying even more because they haven’t enough of their own. LNG is frac’d filthy harmful polluting shit con job of a racket to make the rich richer and nothing else. There is nothing clean or safe about it
Among the carbon-capture projects Ottawa is supporting, Bow Valley Carbon Cochrane Ltd., a partnership of Inter Pipeline Ltd. and Entropy Inc., is receiving $10-million for a CO2 compression, pipeline and sequestration well. The project is designed to capture 40,000 tonnes of carbon per year from Inter Pipeline’s Cochrane gas extraction plant – the equivalent of taking 12,255 cars off the road annually, the partners said.Wanna bet my frac contaminated home and land (50 acres) at Rosebud, they are lying and they know their design will fail!?
Enbridge Inc. is receiving $4-million to map out deep saline reservoirs to support its Wabamun open-access hub north and west of Edmonton, designed to provide utility-scale CO2 transport and storage. Enhance Energy Inc. is also developing a storage hub, and the government is giving it $5-million to study a pressure-depleted saline aquifer.They will all fail.
OptiSeis Solutions Ltd. is working to improve the cost-effectiveness of subsurface analysis technologies for measurement, monitoring and verification of geological CO2 storage. It is getting $538,000.
OCCAM’s Technologies Inc., based in Nisku, Alta., is receiving more than $2-million to study modifications to diesel engines in rail transport, marine shipping and heavy-duty trucking to facilitate small-scale carbon capture using exhaust gas recirculation.
Ottawa announces funding for 5 Alberta carbon capture projects, $21.5M coming from Energy Innovation ProgramIt’s not innovation, carbon capture is fraud by multibillion dollar profit raping multinationals (many of whom refuse to clean up as they rape Canada toxic) to steal from Canadian taxpayers and to keep raping out more profits while escalating their life threatening pollution. Carney disgusted me before the federal election, he disgusts me more every day. by Lauren Krugel, the Canadian Press, Jul 04, 2025, CBC
Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson has announced $21.5 million in federal funding for five Alberta projects that aim to lower the cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions.
The projects are being funded under the Energy Innovation Program, which put out a call for carbon capture, utilization and storage technology proposals.
Bow Valley Carbon Cochrane Ltd., a partnership between Inter Pipeline Ltd. and Entropy Inc., is to receive $10 million to add equipment to a gas extraction plant northwest of Calgary that aimsbut knows it will fail (because industry and our filthy politicians know full well that CCS is a con job for inhumane polluters like this one to keep polluting and escalate their pollution) to capture emissions equivalent to taking more than 12,000 cars off the road a year.
2014 03 12: Cochrane Inner Pipeline Gas Plant Non-compliant Pollution, of course AER, the so called energy regulator enables deadly harms by oil and gas and frac
Enbridge Inc. is to get $4 million and Enhance Energy Inc. is to receive $5 million for separate storage hubs in Central Alberta.Too many people live in these areas, and around the Cochrane polluter for CCS, which when it leaks, which it always does, eventually, can kill masses in minutes
The remainder of the funds are going toward a project looking to improve analysis technologies and another to test small-scale carbon capture from diesel engines.
The announcement comes as uncertainty continues to cloud a $16.5-billion carbon capture project proposed by the Pathways Alliance, a consortium that includes six major oilsands producers.Oh don’t fret toxic lying propagandizing Polluter Alliance, Harper Con Carney will give you whatever you demand, he just needs to do it slowly and creepily with lots of lies and smiles so his daughters don’t figure out he fully intends to destroy their chances of futures.
The companies have not made a final investment decision on the projectbecause they KNOW it will fail and do not want waste any of their profits on it, they want innocent Canadian families to fully pay for their life-threatening polluting con job, which would be one of the largest in the world if built, and federal and provincial support remains a question mark.
Pathways would capture carbon dioxide emissions from more than 20 tarsands mega law violating polluting oilsands facilities in northern Alberta and transport them 400 kilometres away by pipelinewhich puts all life along its route at risk from death if there is a breach, which always happens in the oil and gas industry to a terminal in the Cold Lake area in eastern Alberta, where they for sure will not remain would be stored in an underground hub which puts all life nearby at risk of death when, not if, it leaks to prevent them from entering the atmosphere.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has pitched a “grand bargain” where that emissions-cutting project would go ahead in tandem with a new crude oil pipeline to the West Coast, which no company has thus far proposed to build.
Ottawa is weighing which projects deemed in the national interest will be subject to a sped-up regulatory review under newly passed federal legislationwhich violates rights of Canadians and will seriously harm our environment and climate.
Better Path Coalition@BetterPathPA:
… There’s no evidence that CO2 can be successfully sequestered at all. It’s all risk & no reward because there was never any real chance of one. No excuse to tolerate risk for reward, as our leaders so often do. (See fracking)
Gorgon CCS underperformance hits new low in 2023-24 by Amandine Denis-Ryan and Kevin Morrison, November 28, 2024, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Key Findings
In the last financial year, the Gorgon CCS project captured only 30% of the CO2 it removed from its reservoir, its weakest performance to date.
As a result of technical challenges and underperformance, the cost per tonne of CO2 captured increased again in the last year to $222.
The technical challenges faced by the world’s largest CCS project are not unique; most large CCS projects globally have failed or underperformed materially.
The Gorgon carbon capture and storage (CCS) project is the world’s largest CCS project, located at Chevron’s Gorgon LNG facility on Barrow Island just off the coast of Western Australia. The project removes carbon dioxide (CO2) that is mixed with the natural gas extracted from the reservoir, and then captures and stores it underground.
The project was approved on the condition that it would capture 80% of the CO2 it removed from its reservoir on a five-year rolling average from July 2016.
However, it only started injecting CO2 in August 2019, three years behind schedule, and to date it has captured 44% of the CO2 removed between FY2019-20 and FY2023-24.
Particularly concerning is the fact that Gorgon’s performance has decreased over time, with a marked drop in the percentage of CO2 captured in the past three years. In FY2021-22, it captured 33% of the CO2 it removed, in FY2022-23 34%, and in FY2023-24 just 30%, its lowest performance to date. Since the start of its operation, the project has not achieved its target to capture 80% of the CO2 it removes in any single year. Instead, over the last five years, it underperformed by 45% against that target, and over the last three years by 60%.
…
The captured reservoir emissions represent a very small proportion of the project’s total emissions. In one of its planning documents, Chevron estimated that the Gorgon project would emit around 50 million tonnes a year. This includes Scope One (emissions from removal of CO2 in gas field), Scope Two (CO2 in the gas liquefaction process) and Scope Three emissions (when gas is combusted by consumers such as electricity generators). Scope Three represents the largest share of total emissions. Assuming total emissions of about 50 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent (MtCO2e) since FY2019-20, this would mean that the CCS plant would have reduced those emissions by about 10 MtCO2 to 240 MtCO2e, or a 4% decrease.
The key reason behind Gorgon’s underperformance is issues with the reservoir pressure, which has to stay within a certain range. As a result, the pressure of the CO2 injection system has had to be constrained. In order to mitigate those issues, Chevron has implemented measures to remove water found in the reservoir and reduce the reservoir pressure. The company has built a number of water-producing and injection wells, as well as water-processing infrastructure. In addition, to compensate the shortfall in CO2 captured, Chevron bought about 10 million carbon offsets.
All these measures have added costs to the project. Capital costs increased from $2.5 billion in FY2019-20 to $3.2 billion in FY2023-23 (unchanged in FY2023-24). Chevron has announced that “further investment [is] planned to improve system performance and increase injection rates.”
As a result, the cost per tonne of CO2 (tCO2) captured for the project has increased from an initially estimated $70/tCO2 to more than $200/tCO2 captured. The figure of $70/tCO2 was calculated by IEEFA based on the project’s initial capital costs, and 4 MtCO2 captured a year, which correspond to the project’s capacity. Figure 2 shows the actual cost per tonne captured at the project, which range from about $100/tCO2 to $222/tCO2 in the last financial year.
As can be seen on the graph, costs have been consistently high in the last three financial years. These cost numbers do not include a $60 million government grant Chevron received for the project, nor the cost of purchasing carbon offsets.
…
The underperformance and technical issues faced by the Gorgon project are not an exception. In 2022, IEEFA conducted a global review of 13 flagship CCS projects covering a range of sectors and countries, which represented half of the global CCS capacity. It found that of the 13 projects, only three achieved their targets. Two projects failed, one was suspended after four years of operation (recently restarted), five projects materially underperformed their own targets – by about 20% to 50% – and two projects provided no performance data.
IEEFA then conducted a review of two of the three successful projects, both based in Norway, and found that they faced significant challenges.
In one project, the CO2 unexpectedly migrated to a previously unknown geological layer, with was fortunately contained. In the other project, a new storage location had to be found after just 18 months of operation. The main reason the project proponents were compelled to fix the issues they faced was a high CO2 emission tax in place in Norway.
These issues cast doubt on the financial viability of ambitious CCS plans by Australian governments and companies. For example, the proposed Bayu-Undan CCS project by Santos is much more complex than the Gorgon CCS project. It involves moving CO2 through almost 800km of pipelines and across maritime boundaries, compared with Gorgon’s 7km pipeline.
The new Gorgon CCS data also comes just as the Western Australian government revealed an ambitious vision and action plan for the state to become a global leader in carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). To support the plan, $26 million in government funding was granted to two Western Australian projects.
Investors and governments should consider the risks associated with CCS carefully before allocating funds to those projects.
***
Mikey:
My dark comedy funny bone tingles with laughter every time i hear ‘progressive’ attached to conservatism.
A progressive conservative seems to be the unity of opposites, a verifiable oxymoron, and therefore impossible. Much like a dishonest good person.
Sadly, progressive is more of an advertising ploy which worksAnd our abusive polluter controlled media take great advantage spewing “progressive” as something admirable in our ultra corrupt abusive Nazi Zionist politicians like Harper, Piss Panties Lost His Seat and the nastiest betrayer of all progressive “con men”, Mark Carney. What we do have, and have always had, is regressive conservatives and slightly less regressive conservatives bickering over authoritarianism heavy or slightly less heavy. As such, they merge with Liberals, also anti-democratic authoritarians, and so the circle turns with candies and carrots to amuse the captured minds.
No wonders democracy can’t get off the ground with so much ‘progressivism’ sprayed everywhere that explicitly prevents democratic elections, intra-party democracy, and full and comprehensive freedom of information that welcomes citizens into political decision making.
Talk about a white wash!
Mark Carney, and the return of the progressive conservative by The Editorial Board, June 2025 The Globe and mail
As Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a massive and immediate boost to defence spending earlier this month, he talked about the importance of using those new funds prudently.
“Every taxpayer dollar is precious,”The above insane gifts to polluters proves these Carney words are lies
he said in passing, later adding that his government would not be looking for new sources of revenue to pay for the defence buildup. “We just cut taxes, we’re not raising taxes.”But he only, like his orange Nazi pal, only cut taxes for the rich and middle class (which in Canada means you are rich and ultra privileged), not for the poor, notably not for those living below the poverty line. Carney is a Mulroney-Harper clone, the worst clone yet of rich white male abusive greed serving rich white abusive males and industries (the military’s mass murder machine, feeding Adolf Orange’s ego on the back of Canadian families, and destroying the earth’s livable climate to keep the cruel destructive pro polluter, pro raping religions happy via the GDP)
It’s easy enough to imagine a Conservative prime minister uttering similar sentiments – much easier than, say, envisioning former prime minister Justin Trudeau waxing on about the need to pinch pennies in the federal budget and making a no-new-taxes pledge.
That Mr. Carney is an extreme right evil greedy old rich white man racist Nazi Harper con fooled most of those who voted for him, and horrifies manywas going to drag the Liberal Party back to the centre after years of an NDP-lite government under Mr. Trudeau was to be expected. Two months after the election, the extent of that metamorphosis is becoming clearer – and it is remarkable.
Part of that change is atmospheric. There are no more breathless lectures from Mr. Trudeau; they have been, inhumanelymercifully, replaced by Mr. Carney’scruel vulgar Zionist-Nazi lies which the cruel vulgar Zionist-Nazi Globe and Mail also heavily and frequently spews boardroom staccato. Unlike his predecessor, the current Prime Minister boasts of being “laser-focused” on economic growth. And Canadians, happily, have no idea what kind of socks Mr. Carney likes to wear.
But more than mannerisms have changed. Since April, the Prime Minister has cut personal income taxesBut not for poor Canadians that need the cut, only rich and uber rich ones got Carney’s bribery, boosted defence spending dramatically, pledged to cut the cost of the federal bureaucracy, tightenedHarper and Trump’s cruel racism and hideous white supremacy immigration rules, eliminated federal barriers to internal trade, created a framework for aiding billion dollar profit raping mostly foreign owned (eg American) polluters to pollute and destroy more of Canada, violate our rights, while raping out more billions of dollars to fatten already too fat and rich hideous Nazis in the USA breaking the stasis on big national projects and signaled that he will dismiss underperforming top bureaucrats.replace thousands of Canadian workers with monstrous stupid stolen AI and SuperAI to also further fatten and uglify already fat and ugly tech billionaires (mostly American).
That’s an agenda that Brian Mulroney could have endorsed. In fact, it overlaps a good deal with the actual governing record of the hideous white supremacist Canada hating Harper Reformacons. There is nothing progressive or humane about Carney and his Harper cons. Progressive Conservatives.Mr. Carney is a Harper con man. Stop lying Globe and Mail editorial Nazi genocidaires Liberal but, in the early going, he looks to be governing much like a Steve Harper democracy and Canada hating ReformaCon Red Tory – a progressive kind of conservative.
Mr. Carney’s agenda is one that the ALL Liberals, in their Trudeau-era incarnation, would have most likely loudly denounced. Indeed, some left-leaning Liberals in the current caucus, including former cabinet minister and leadership contender Karina Gould, have already voiced their disquiet on legislation to speed up megaproject approvals.That’s because she’s not a con artist like Harper, Trump, and Carney
That could portend problems not that far down the road for the Liberal coalition that gave Mr. Carney and the Piss Pantie Cons their super majority his minority government. The Liberals corralled the progressive vote, with support for the NDP and Greens plummeting from the 2021 campaign. Will those voters stick with the Liberals if Mr. Carney continues his rightward sidestep?Sure they will, with Fascists like the Globe and Mail editorial board and endless other greedy Nazi fucks lying for him, and pimping him as something he is not And will Mr. Carney stick with his agenda if his progressive supporters bolt? …
Super Yeti:
… I still remember growing up with “scrums” in the hallways of parliament where every prime minister tall, small, sweet-natured or shifty, all got microphones shoved in their faces and they all navigated it. Then Harper came along and not only wouldn’t do scrums, banned the press corps from their usual block in the House premises. And what I saw at the time was a weak, “well we don’t agree with it but if you say so,” response from media. When Trump tried that in his first term, they screamed bloody murder so loud he was forced to reverse his edict because he just looked like an a-hole. Harper didn’t mind that.
I still remember the look of burning “how dare you” silence on his face as some of his youthful henchpeople shoved a Chinese reporter for trying to ask him a question he apparently hadn’t personally expected. The whitewashing of Harper, who CONTINUES to work for antidemocratic movements large and small as we speak, is no more helpful than the silence at his actions in the 2000s.Harper is a perfect little Nazi, that’s why the evil Zionist white supremacist misogynistic anti-democracy IDU (reportedly with CIA origins) made him Chair. Carney is a much grander much more elegant perfect little Nazi, much more dangerous than Harper because Carney is intelligent, Harper is not. Harper and Pee Pee just have hate, male body parts, and white skin as their assets, Carney has those Nazi assets and and intelligence. Terrifying mix.
Refer also to:
2024: Dr. Sandra Steingraber: “Fracking=dumb. Carbon capture=dumber. Together=insanity.”
Seven reasons why policymakers should reject carbon capture and storage
1. The buildout of CCS infrastructure presents serious health, safety, and environmental risks. Marginalized communities already overburdened by industrial hazards are being targeted for CCS.
Transporting and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) involves a massive network of perilous pipelines connected to underground injection sites, each with its own set of dangers. Pipelines can leak or rupture; compressed CO2 is highly hazardous upon release and can result in the asphyxiation of humans and animals. Underground storage poses additional risks, such as potential leakage, contamination of drinking water, and stimulation of seismic activity. These hazards apply to all the current and proposed variants utilizing CCS technologies, including carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), fossil hydrogen with CCS (“blue” or decarbonized hydrogen), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), coal-bioenergy systems with CCS (CBECCS), waste-to-energy with CCS (WtE-CCS), and direct air capture (DAC), which depends on CCS or CCUS to manage the captured carbon.
2. CCS is not consistent with the principles of environmental justice.
Pollution-burdened communities are being targeted for CCS, which brings new risks and threats, ironically in the name of environmental justice. The U.S. Gulf Coast, including the Louisiana petrochemical corridor known as “Cancer Alley,” northern plains, and California Central Valley, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada, are among those areas being targeted for CCS development. Such a buildout would impose new pollution and safety hazards on Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities already suffering the disproportionate and deadly impacts of environmental racism.
3. Rather than replacing fossil fuels, carbon capture technology prolongs our dependence on them.
By design, carbon capture is parasitic on the underlying sources of emissions to which it is attached. Putting carbon capture technology on greenhouse-gas emitting facilities enables those facilities to continue operating, effectively providing those emitters with a license to pollute indefinitely. In practice, CCS at best captures only a fraction of carbon emissions and fails to address other harmful pollution from fuel combustion, such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as other contaminants from the underlying activities to which CCS was applied. The additional energy required to power the carbon capture process generates even more emissions if supplied by fossil fuels.
4. The majority of captured carbon is used to pump more oil out of the ground.
Almost all existing CCS projects are tied to “enhanced oil recovery” (EOR). In EOR, CO2 is injected into depleted underground oil reservoirs to boost oil production. EOR is currently the primary market driver for captured CO2; no other markets exist at the scale proposed by many of the technology’s proponents. EOR results in more oil extraction and more carbon emissions when that oil is burned and is disastrous for the climate. Yet, the public in the United States is currently paying for EOR through the Section 45Q tax credit, of which oil companies are the biggest beneficiaries. In Canada, the oil and gas industry is lobbying for a similar tax break.
5. There is no economic rationale for the massive deployment of CCS.
Attaching carbon capture technology to an emitting source makes operating that source both more expensive and more energy-intensive. As costs of clean energy like solar and wind plummet, fossil fuel and biomass power plants are becoming less competitive, and adding carbon capture just makes them more costly. Even in heavy-emitting industrial sectors such as plastic or petrochemical manufacturing, applying CCS at scale makes little climate or economic sense.
The push to deploy CCS in the industrial sector ignores the most important alternative methods for curtailing the vast majority of the sector’s emissions. These methods, including replacing fossil fuels with non-carbon emitting renewable energy, are already available and scalable. Investing in CCS infrastructure add-ons to existing facilities locks those facilities and their current energy technologies in place. It diverts resources from non-polluting alternatives that are compatible with a safe climate future.
6. CCS does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. At best, it prevents some carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere.
Even there, it falls short: CCS projects implemented to date have systematically overpromised and under-delivered on emissions reductions. Advertisements from some fossil fuel companies that compare CCS to a living plant are deeply misleading. Industry claims that BECCS is a negative emissions technology are based on the flawed and scientifically discredited premise that burning biomass is carbon neutral. In fact, burning wood for energy can increase greenhouse gas impacts for decades to centuries compared to fossil fuels.
7. Science and existing regulations do not back the promise of “permanent” storage or sequestration of carbon.
Current US federal regulations, for example, only require storage of CO2 for 50 years to qualify for subsidies. But CO2 lingers in the atmosphere and environment on a geological time scale — for hundreds or even thousands of years. Considering CO2 injected underground or used in the manufacture of plastics, cement, or other goods will be safely contained in perpetuity is irresponsible at best. It merely kicks the can down a very short road, to be a burden to the next generation.
2012: CO2 in Stream, Dead Ducks Prompt Wyo. DEQ Citation
2012: Scientific American: Can Fracking and Carbon Sequestration Coexist?
Fracking for natural gas may require shattering geologic formations that efforts to store CO2 permanently underground require to be impermeable. … The process is designed to increase permeability of the rock over a long distance.
2012: PNAS: Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide
Despite its enormous cost, large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a viable strategy for significantly reducing CO2 emissions associated with coal-based electrical power generation and other industrial sources of CO2. … We argue here that there is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2 into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors. Because even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, in this context, large-scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions
2012: The evaluation of CO2-based vapour extraction (VAPEX) process for heavy-oil recovery
Vapor extraction (VAPEX) has been proposed as an alternative for heavy-oil recovery in reservoirs where thermal methods face technical and economic problems. In VAPEX, a pair of horizontal injector-producer wells is employed. The gaseous hydrocarbon solvent (normally propane or a mixture of methane–propane or propane–butane) is injected from the top well and the diluted oil drains downward by gravity to the bottom producer. Recently, the idea of incorporation of CO2 into the gaseous hydrocarbon mixture has emerged. Incorporation of CO2 is believed to make the process more economical and environmentally and technically attractive. … The objective of this work, therefore, is to simulate the performance of the VAPEX process when different solvent mixtures, including hydrocarbon gases and CO2, are incorporated with the aim of improving its performance.
2008: Bachu, S., Buschkuehle, B.E., Haug, K. and Michael, K. (2008): Subsurface characterization of the Edmonton-area acid-gas injection operations; Energy Resources Conservation Board, ERCB
Now AER/AGS Special Report 92, 134 p.
… From Page 88:
Figure 59 shows the extent of the Acheson original Blairmore T and subsequent St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pools, and of the Strathfield (undefined) gas reservoir in the context of lithofacies changes in the Lower Mannville Basal Quartz and Ellerslie formations. When approval was granted for acid gas injection at Acheson, the regulatory agency required the operator to file annually with EUB and each other operator in the Acheson Blairmore T and St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pools progress reports that “shall include the impact of acid gas injection on the performance of offsetting producing wells”. In March 2004 the operator at Acheson reported that CO2 was detected in 2003 in well 10-22-53-26W4 in the St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pool, located at 3,625 m north from the acid-gas injection well. No H2S has been detected in the produced gas. Since at Acheson the average composition of the acid gas is 87% CO2 and 11% H2S (Table 14), with H2S being denser and more viscous than CO2, it is expected that CO2 would show first at a producing well. In addition, diagenetic processes within the reservoir could have reduced the H2S concentration in the injected acid gas as a result of pyrite precipitation, if an iron source was available. The issue was brought to EUB’s attention and was heading to a hearing, but the operator at Acheson has indicated to the regulatory agency that it has initiated an Appropriate Dispute Resolution process with the operator of the offset producing well to address the issue of CO2 breakthrough, and that this situation “will be addressed pursuant to the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement”.To gag the harmed?
This case shows that, after 13 years of injection, CO2 has migrated northward a distance of [nearly 4 km] mostly under the combined drive of injection and production.
The drive into the St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A gas pool has increased lately with the large spike in gas production from this pool (Figure 57b). There are five producing wells much closer to the acid-gas injection well (Figure 59) that did not report CO2 breakthrough, but these wells are owned by the same operator that operated until recently the Acheson acid-gas injection site. If acid gas broke through at any of these wells, it is most likely that the operator just stripped the acid gas from the sour reservoir gas and re-injected it, as the produced gas in this area is sour to begin with. Understanding the migration path and fate of the injected acid gas at Acheson requires a separate study that is beyond the scope of this report. …
2007: Presentation on below 2006 paper Factors Affecting or Indicating Potential Wellbore Leakage by Watson and Bachu at the Alberta regulator, AER (when it was EUB), no less!
2006: The Role of the Upper Geosphere in Mitigating CO2 Surface Releases in Wellbore Leakage Scenarios
2006: Possible indicators for CO2 leakage along wells by Bachu and Watson, 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway
… Storage safety refers to the potential harm to other resources, equity and life that a CO2 leak may entail.
The probability and effects of leakage from CO2 storage sites need assessment by both the operator and regulatory agency during the application and permitting process, during the operational phase and after site abandonment [3].
Any fluid in the subsurface, especially a buoyant one like CO2, will migrate laterally within the injection unit and may leak upwards across formations through faults and fractures and/or defective wells [1, 4].
The potential for CO2 leakage through fractures and faults can be well managed through proper geological characterization and selection of the storage site, and through proper operating procedures.
Managing the potential for CO2 leakage through wells is more difficult.
Exploration and production wells have been drilled, completed and abandoned since the middle of the 19th century, with variable technology and materials, and with no or under variable regulatory regimes. Well materials (cements, steel, elastomers, etc.) will or may degrade over time, particularly in the presence of corrosive agents such as saline formation water and CO2 [5, 6]. Thus, the potential for leakage through existing wells needs to be assessed for site selection and remediation. New wells will also be subjected to the same in-situ conditions as the existing wells