Capturing is possible and reasonable given the current available technologies. The question is where will all of this CO2 be stored? Perhaps there is available some depleted gas wells, then it raises the question of transportation. We don't have enough pipelines to transport the crude oil now, how much is going to be spent shuffling CO2 around the province?

I googled Carbon capture and storage problems as you suggested, but I didn't find any negative comments. Could you be more specific about your concerns?

Myself, I'm curious about what CCS could do to groundwater regimes. Will it cause contamintion of groundwater? Could it change flow patterns?

I'm also curious about the energy balance to accomplish CCS. How much CO2 is released in transporting, pressurizing, and storing the CO2? Will it be significantly lower than the amount of CO2 that is being stored?

I like to look at carbon sequestration in a slightly different way than I've seen other describe it. Essentially if you look at the hydrocarbons - oil, gas, bitumen and for that matter coal, they are essentially sequestered carbon, only carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago. I think it is perfectly logical option to "resequester" this same carbon in depleted oil and gas reservoirs where it once was sequestered. It would be sequestered as CO2 rather than as CH4 or other hydrocarbons. We have simply extracted the energy from it. I think sequestration at major projects sites and from major sources such as power plants and large sources such as upgraders makes a lot of sense. This is controlling the "supply" side of CO2.

The other side of the equation is the demand side of CO2. How simple it would be for us as consumers to reduce the amount of CO2 generated. Do we need to all drive our SUV's, live in excessively large houses etc. etc. Should we not have an expectation that we have efficient and comfortable public transportation, publically funded, rather than publically funded freeways and interchanges. I think we the consumer need to change our habits and hold our politicians accountable.

I actually support the concept of a carbon tax on all consumption - industrial and consumer - including exports. This tax could be used to fund projects to wean us from our excessive hydrocarbon consumption - projects such as a high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary. Alberta has a tremendous opportunity to lead the way, not only in Canada, but in the world. But first we as Alberta consumers need to be responsible in way we consume hydrocarbons or we deserve the red neck label we so often get.

Is this pretty radical thinking, no, I hope not, and no, I not writing this for an Environment advocacy group or for an Oil company. I have spent the last 34 years working in the "patch", but I am writing this as an Albertan, a Canadian, and a world citizen.

Bill

This is a collosal waste of money and resources for something that is not a problem. AGW is falling apart at the seams. More and more peer reviewed papers do not support alarmist predictions. The sooner this scam is shown to be what it is, a big expensive hoax, the sooner we can get on to more urgent issues.

Here's a report about some briefing notes prepared for the federal government by a carbon capture task force and made public by the CBC (who obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act).

Doesn't sound too good for CCS, but the technology is still being touted by the Feds and Alberta as the major way that tar sands CO2 emissions will be dealt with.

Anyway, here's the report:

Little gain from oil sands carbon capture: report

Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:28am GMT

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Canada's government saw only limited opportunities to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands using carbon capture and storage technology, according to briefing notes obtained by a Canadian media.

The notes, prepared by a carbon capture task force, were used by Canadian federal and provincial politicians and were obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, which said it requested them under freedom of information legislation.

Carbon capture and storage would see carbon-dioxide removed from the emissions of oil sands upgraders that turn tar-like bitumen into refinery-ready synthetic crude. The captured CO2 would be put into underground reservoirs for permanent storage instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.

The government of Alberta and the federal government are touting carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a way clean up emissions from huge energy projects in the northern Alberta oil sands region, which contains some 173 billion barrels of tar-like bitumen.

Earlier this year Alberta set aside C$2 billion (to fund CCS projects from big emitters like oil sands upgraders and power plants

But the briefing notes say the technology offers only limited solutions to greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands projects.

"Only a small percentage of emitted CO2 is 'capturable' since most emissions aren't pure enough," said a copy of the note that was posted on the CBC website. "Only limited near-term opportunities exist in the oil sands and they largely relate to the upgrader facilities."

It also said that the projects will be expensive and government will have legal liability for stored carbon-dioxide.

Some critics say the briefing notes are only acknowledging what is already known: that the technology is expensive and may not mitigate carbon emissions for the oil sands.

"This is technology that will require massive subsidies," said Dave Martin, climate and energy co-ordinator for Greenpeace "This is a boondoggle of the first order."

Still, the Alberta government is backing the technology as a way to ensure that oil sands projects don't face sanctions from any climate change legislation introduced in the United States, which buys most of Canada's oil exports.

"It's well known that there are some challenges in capturing emissions at oil sands facilities," said Jason Chance, a spokesman for Alberta's energy department. "But what our own analysis tells us is still up to 75 percent of oil sands (emissions) are capturable."

($1=$1.23 Canadian)

(Reporting by Scott Haggett; editing by Rob Wilson)

Here below is an article from Rachel's Democracy & Health News #959, May 15, 2008

THE CARBON CAPTURE JUGGERNAUT ROLLS ON

[Rachel's introduction: If the coal industry's carbon capture and storage (CCS) plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous as well. A new report explains why the plan cannot work.]

By Peter Montague

The coal, oil, automobile, railroad and electric power industries are planning to "solve" the global warming problem by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and burying it a mile underground, hoping it will stay there forever. The plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and storage" (or sometimes "carbon capture and sequestration").

Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) is thought to be the main human contribution to global warming.

If industry's CCS plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous as well. As the New York Times reported April 23, 2008, "A large leak of underground carbon dioxide could be as dangerous as a leak of nuclear fuel, critics say."

Now a new report by Emily Rochon and others (download it here: http://www.precaution.org/lib/gp_report_false_hope.080505.pdf), published by Greenpeace International, describes industry's CCS plan in detail and shows, point by point, why it cannot prevent climate chaos.

Anyone who wants a basic introduction to CCS will want to get a copy of Rochon's report. It is a thoroughly documented, carefully argued, presentation of industry's plan, with professional graphics that clarify how CCS is supposed to work.

Rochon's report is even-handed, often leaning over backwards to present the industry plan in the best possible light. Still, the report concludes that CCS is a "dangerous gamble" that ultimately cannot prevent climate chaos because -- even if it works -- it will arrive too late to do any good.

In 40 pages, Rochon's report reinforces five main points:

1. CCS wastes energy. Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10% to 40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for every 4 new power plants that use CCS. Thus CCS requires, on average, 25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power plants by 90%.

2. CCS is expensive. CCS will double the cost of a power plant and will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and 91%, according to U.S. government figures. Worse, CCS will divert funds away from renewable sources of energy and energy conservation projects, which could reduce CO2 emissions faster and at lower cost than CCS.

3. Storing carbon dioxide underground is risky. No one can guarantee that CO2 buried in the ground will stay put forever. Even very low leakage rates could reverse the climate benefits achieved initially by CO2 burial.

4. CCS carries significant liability risks. A large leak of CO2 could kill vegetation, animals, and humans over a fairly large area. Industry is already angling to get taxpayers to shoulder the liability. With some 6000 CCS burial projects required to make a significant dent in the CO2 problem, opportunities for serious mishaps will be ever-present.

5. CCS cannot deliver in time to avert climate chaos. The world's scientific community is saying CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 and decline thereafter -- but even the most optimistic industry plans call for CCS to begin in 2020 -- and most industry spokespeople are saying CCS won't be available until 2030 to 2050.

Despite these fatal flaws in industry's CCS plan, the U.S. and Europe (and probably China) are counting on CCS to solve the global warming problem. As Fred pearce wrote in New Scientist March 29, "In Germany, only CCS can make sense of an energy policy that combines a large number of new coal-fired power stations with plans for a 40 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020." And the New York Times reported April 23, "Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent." The Times reports that "the technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that add to global warming -- carbon capture and storage -- is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is feasible on a large, cost-effective scale."

In the U.S., the three remaining major presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and McCain -- are all enthusiastic supporters of coal with CCS tacked on. No matter who wins the presidency, the coal industry will be sitting in the Oval Office promoting CCS.

In sum, the coal industry is putting all our eggs -- yours and mine -- in a basket that has never been tried before on a commercial scale. It is -- as Emily Rochon says with characteristic understatement -- a "dangerous gamble."

Rochon's report ends by reminding readers that we already know how to solve climate chaos. Energy conservation and renewable sources of energy are already available, are cost-effective, and can do the job far faster than coal with CCS. CCS is not only dangerous, expensive, and too late to do any good. It is also unnecessary. Given all that, why would we choose to take this dangerous gamble?