One of the more curious curiosities of energy production is that oil and gas extractors will often inject carbon-dioxide deep underground. They do this because the CO2 helps displace the fossil fuels, pushing them up to the surface and making them easier to extract. As a nice bonus, the technique also lets them lay claim to some green cred for “sequestering” CO2 underground where it can’t contribute to climate change. At least that’s the idea.
The problem, however, is all too easy to predict. From the Winnipeg Free Press, an alarming story from Saskatchewan:
Since 2000, Cenovus has injected about 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide underground to force more oil from an aging field and safely store greenhouse gases that would otherwise contribute to climate change.
But in 2005, the Kerrs began noticing algae blooms, clots of foam and multicoloured scum in two ponds at the bottom of a gravel quarry on their land. Sometimes, the ponds bubbled. Small animals—cats, rabbits and goats—were regularly found dead a few metres away.
Then there were the explosions.
It’s worth a read. Fearing for their safety, the family abandoned the farm. Yet the oil company denies that their CO2 is leaking from the underground resevoirs — despite rather damming evidence to the contrary.
What’s even more alarming, however, is that so-called carbon capture and sequestration is routinely touted as a way that we can have our fossil fuel cake and eat it too. We’re told that we can continue burning coal, drilling for oil, and all the rest of it without climate consequences because we’ll figure out a way to stuff the CO2 back underground. And while there are a range of different techniques for sequestering carbon in geologic formations—and different circumstances under which it is proposed — all of them are premised on the notion that the gases will stay put, and not find a way back up to the surface and into the air. It’s an uncertain proposition.
Fortunately, there is one absolutely reliable method of sequestering fossil fuel carbon, a method that just happens to be far cheaper than the expensive sequestration technologies now under consideration. Basically, what you do is this: you leave fossil fuels in the ground and you don’t burn them.
Problem solved.
Eric Hess
Out of sight, out of mind. Just like shipping coal to China. If we don’t burn it here, it didn’t happen. Tada!
Barry
I totally agree with Eric’s ending line: “leave fossil fuels in the ground and you don’t burn them”.And Eric Hess’s comment is spot on. The current end-run that Big Fossil is trying is to shift GHG spew to nations that won’t count it on their books…like China.BC is already a master class in this. It exports 60Mt of embedded coal carbon to china every year without putting any of it under it’s “carbon tax” or counting any of it in it’s GHG footprint.Now the tar sands boys have cottoned onto to the way the climate-whacking game is played. They are just desperate for a pipeline to get their GHG out of north america (where people care a little bit) and into…wait for it…China! The poor masses in China just absolutely “need” the elixer of life from brave Canada’s tar sands.Looked into Australia’s coal economy lately. Bingo.I think Big Fossil has played the CCS game as far as they really think it has legs. Maybe a few more years and a few more billions of dollars in taxpayer money will go down those CCS holes. But not much CO2 ever will. It just doesn’t make economic sense. It never has. It was just an excuse to burn baby burn for a few more years.Export carbon is the new “take down civilization for short term profit” polluter game plan.
Andrew
Shouldn’t the term be re-sequestration? After all, the carbon was perfectly sequestered in the first place until it extracted to do some “work” somewhere. Sadly we often have very little to show for the “work” done.