New Carbon Sequestration Critique Disputed by Scientific Community

By Tim O’Connor, Attorney / Climate Policy Analyst

A recent issue of the UK Guardian has brought to the forefront the findings of paper published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.[1] This paper, purporting to call into question the ability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to serve as a solution for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is making waves in the scientific and climate change policy communities. Titled “Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume,” the article suggests CCS is not a viable solution to the current problem of these emissions from fossil fuel power plants, an assertion flying in the face of accepted wisdom on the subject to date.[2]

Published by perhaps the only Texas-based husband and wife team specializing in petroleum and chemical engineering, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael Economides, the journal article has resulted in a significant amount of consternation[3] in the scientific community and an unfortunate level of attention by news outlets looking for a reason (scientifically supportable or otherwise) to undermine CCS as a bridge technology for greenhouse gas mitigation.[4]

In essence, the paper argues that CCS will require a much larger subsurface geographic area than previously thought to be effective.  According to the article, a single 500-MW power plant could require a land area about the size of a small U.S. state.  Due to this projected massive land need, the authors argue that CCS will be cost-prohibitive, essentially a boondoggle of the highest proportions in almost every foreseeable application.  Such an opinion is certainly not a sound bite the U.S. Department of Energy (which recently announced a $3 billion investment in CCS research, development and deployment) or power plants such as the proposed Tenaska Trailblazer site (projected to sequester 85% of its emissions using CCS) are likely to take seriously.[5]

This article has been met with an outpouring of support for CCS from a supermajority of experts making up the broader scientific community on this subject.  Indeed, a read of the responses to the journal, coupled with a review of the litany of CCS literature, show that the authors' opinions on CCS potential are extreme outliers in the growing scientific consensus surrounding carbon sequestration.

In response to journal article and Guardian story, no fewer than four formal responses by leading CCS experts in the scientific community have been added to the public discussion, with more likely to be published.[6]

In addition, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and American Petroleum Institute (API) issued statements in response to the article, pointing out the authors’ misapplication of known petrochemical and reservoir management principles combined with improper assumptions. Of note is that no responses from the scientific community have supported the authors’ extreme projections on subsurface area needs, or their conclusions regarding limitations on pore space "injectivity" that are known to be posed by pressure considerations or other factors.

In general, scientific community responses to the article include five fundamental critiques of the authors’ methodology:

  1. A mischaracterization of reservoir outcropping leakage potential
  2. A misunderstanding of pore space dynamics and availability
  3. Fundamental errors in authors’ numerical model related to vertical and lateral migration potential (questioning the absolute impermeable boundaries assumption)
  4. Failure to take evidence from current CCS projects into account
  5. Inaccurate perception of reservoir pressure management at CCS sites

A sixth critique by the API questions the authors' estimates (or underestimates) of the amount of enhanced oil recovery available for CO2 sequestration, a critical part of their assertion that the U.S. doesn’t have enough capacity to mitigate emissions on the level necessary to meet long-term reduction targets.

Such critiques, however, while tending to disprove the authors' overall characterization of how much CO2 can be injected into an individual site, and how it will migrate, must make room for the valuable messages that can be drawn from their work.

First and foremost, the authors and response papers agree that, as an important first step to any project, it is necessary to confirm the aquifer size and characterize subsurface geologic conditions through an aquifer appraisal process before starting sequestration. This process of site selection will be the only way to know the subsurface characteristics of the injection site, model the probable plume migration pathways and make projections about storage potential.

Second, and perhaps as important, is that the authors and responders agree that reservoir pressure is linked to overall injectivity, and that detailed formation-scale capacity assessments should take pore volume and pressure into account.

Finally, since injected CO2 plumes can migrate laterally or vertically underground depending on geologic and injection conditions, it is critical that sequestration projects be equipped with sufficient subsurface monitoring to track CO2 migration once injection begins.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when properly sited, operated and monitored, geologic sequestration projects can be expected to retain 99% of injected CO2 in the subsurface for 1000 years or more.

This finding underscores the importance of CCS as a low-carbon technology and shows the importance of educating the public about the merits of the technology.  With the fresh gut check provided by the Economides and the overwhelming response from both the scientific community, API and WRI, the desire to make CCS work as a mitigation option is receiving the attention is deserves.

The completion of a few successful commercial scale projects at home and abroad should quell concerns such as those raised in the article and allow CCS technology to grow as a major solution for reducing emissions and provide another reason to invest in innovative technologies that can help us transition to a clean energy economy.

[1] Guardian, April 27, 2010, “US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage”

[2] Ehlig-Economides and Economides, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 123–130

[3] Haszeldine et al., Response to the article April 27, 2010 article in the Guardian

[4] Canada Free Press, Feb., 25, 2010, “Geologic Carbon Storage Can Never Work, says new US study”

[5] The Clean Economy Group, April 19, 2010, “Tenaska agrees to capture, sequester 85% of CO2 emissions in settlement with Environmental Defense Fund”

[6] 1) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 2) Pacific Northwest National Lab, 3) ZEP (Zero Emissions Platform), 4) Formal Reply by A. J. Cavanagh, R. S. Haszeldine and M. J. Blunt

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

92 Comments

  1. Posted May 30, 2010 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with ‘we leave it to you to decide’.

  2. Posted May 30, 2010 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Ho..That's right, got it

  3. Posted May 30, 2010 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article.

  4. Posted May 30, 2010 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps you have considered adding extra video clips about automotive leak repair to your blog posts to hold the visitors further entertained? I mean I just read through the entire piece of writing of yours and it was completely pleasant but since I'm mare like a visual learner,I found that for being extra helpful well let me know how it turns out! I love what you guys are always up too. Such bright job and reporting! Continue the great works guys I've added you guys to my blogroll. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information.. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post.

  5. Posted May 31, 2010 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Interesting blog. It would be great if you can provide more details about it. Thanks you

  6. Posted May 31, 2010 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    you two rally make a lovely couple.

  7. Posted June 1, 2010 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    the landing pages practices really are a interesting technique. :-)

  8. Posted June 1, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    congratulations guide. i wasted some time looking for a tankini while in the concept. this valuable go well with a lot of various other very hot slimming bathing suits are generally availble the following. bikinis

  9. Posted June 2, 2010 at 3:23 am | Permalink

    Great stuff from you, man.  Ive read your stuff before and youre just too awesome.  I love what youve got here, love what youre saying and the way you say it.  You make it entertaining and you still manage to keep it smart.  I cant wait to read more from you.  This is really a great blog.

  10. Posted June 2, 2010 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Some of the blogs I have read have really made me sit and think. Yours did exactly that and I appreciate it. Making me think is sometimes hard but great either way. Thanks for your post!

  11. Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    I am happy to have found this site. Keep up the good postings.

  12. Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Thanks for taking the time to chat about  this, I feel  fervently  about this and I benefit from learning about this subject.  Please, as you gain information, please add to  this blog with more information.  I have found it really useful.

  13. Posted June 2, 2010 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Recently, I didn't give so much thought to writing comments on blog entries and have left comments even less. Checking out your insightful page, will probably encourage me to do so more regularly.

  14. Posted June 3, 2010 at 3:56 am | Permalink

    You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post.

  15. Posted June 3, 2010 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Hi, I located a movie site where you can find the movie! You can see for yourself here: Find the movie here

  16. Posted June 4, 2010 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    I admire ur job!

  17. Posted June 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    well done post. i put in any time attempting to find often the bikini at the snapshot. this specific match several some other warm tankinis might be availble at this point. Men's Suits

  18. Posted June 5, 2010 at 4:05 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the post. I'm an Internet Marketer too. I have a ton of sites like yours and I lock out warez people want – they unlock, I get paid.

  19. Posted June 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    This Blog is very nice.

  20. Posted June 7, 2010 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    If you're still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you'll know which is right for you.

  21. Posted June 8, 2010 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    You did a good job.

  22. Posted June 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    I certainly like your web site layout it's so clean, simple to read.

  23. Posted June 9, 2010 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Hi admin ! thank for your info to posted right here.

  24. Posted June 9, 2010 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

  25. Posted June 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Great job Antonio. It's good to hear of stories like yours

  26. Posted June 10, 2010 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    Howdy, your site is on air in the radio! Good job mate. Your posts are truly great and bookmarked. Regards

  27. Posted June 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    haha your blog is boss uhm yeah if you use twitter follow me @ http://twitter.com/gr8p

  28. Posted June 11, 2010 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!

  29. Posted June 11, 2010 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you

  30. Posted June 11, 2010 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Come on dude, these facts* and proof* i mean who is posting* lol :P

  31. Posted June 13, 2010 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Outstanding efforts, and very detailed. Causes you appear trustworthy, which is tricky to arrive by these days.

  32. Posted June 14, 2010 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    Free megaupload download : noelbay.com

  33. Posted June 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    :O So mush Information :O … It is he MOst Incredible Site DUDe…

  34. Posted June 15, 2010 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Wonderful publish! I'm genuinely impressed by the top quality of the resources. Thank you alot.

  35. Posted June 16, 2010 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    hehe… thank you for posting about this. You make me the lucky person today… :)

  36. Posted June 16, 2010 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    ohh…nice publish but truly?/? :P

  37. Posted June 17, 2010 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    This is a terrific post, but I was wondering how do I suscribe to the RSS feed?

  38. Posted June 17, 2010 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the nice post. I always try to bookmark posts like this that I have so many! Now I need a bookmark manager hehe!

  39. Posted June 17, 2010 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    You write very interestingly. I think Google is becoming very smart. It can sense which website has interesting posts

  40. Posted June 19, 2010 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    Amazing! With thanks! I constantly wanted to produce in my world-wide-web website anything similar to that. Am i authorized to quote a aspect of the article to my weblog?

  41. Posted June 19, 2010 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Useful tips! they are going to help me when i have nothing in mind to blog about, thanks :)

  42. Posted June 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Terrific post. Thanks.