Comments on: Headlines: Oil Company Exec Says Knowledge of Geophysics Will Come in Handy for Carbon Capture https://techsomogro.com/headlines-oil-company-exec-knowledge-geophysics-handy-carbon-capture/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=headlines-oil-company-exec-knowledge-geophysics-handy-carbon-capture Science, Technology and the Future Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:06:16 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: lenrosen4 https://techsomogro.com/headlines-oil-company-exec-knowledge-geophysics-handy-carbon-capture/#comment-10387 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:06:16 +0000 http://www.21stcentech.com/?p=11830#comment-10387 Steve Papagiannis. Hi Steve, I too am incredulous about Dirk Smit's comments suggesting there is a reality to carbon sequestration and that oil companies are in a good position to make it a reality. That's why I concluded the posting the way I did. The way current sequestration works is you liquify the CO2 and pump it into the ground under pressure. The target formations are sandstone because when CO2 combines with this sedimentary rock in the presence of water you get CaCO4, calcium carbonate....limestone. Is there a downside to converting sandstone to limestone. Probably. I would think sandstone is a natural aquifer whereas limestone tends to form a cap and sealant. So would you be toying with underground water sources? I think geologists like Smit are self-serving spokespersons for the fossil fuel industry and shouldn't be taken at their word. I hadn't read about the aquaculture sequestration solution. Can you send me a link?]]> In reply to Steve Papagiannis.

Hi Steve, I too am incredulous about Dirk Smit’s comments suggesting there is a reality to carbon sequestration and that oil companies are in a good position to make it a reality. That’s why I concluded the posting the way I did. The way current sequestration works is you liquify the CO2 and pump it into the ground under pressure. The target formations are sandstone because when CO2 combines with this sedimentary rock in the presence of water you get CaCO4, calcium carbonate….limestone. Is there a downside to converting sandstone to limestone. Probably. I would think sandstone is a natural aquifer whereas limestone tends to form a cap and sealant. So would you be toying with underground water sources? I think geologists like Smit are self-serving spokespersons for the fossil fuel industry and shouldn’t be taken at their word.

I hadn’t read about the aquaculture sequestration solution. Can you send me a link?

]]> By: Steve Papagiannis https://techsomogro.com/headlines-oil-company-exec-knowledge-geophysics-handy-carbon-capture/#comment-10379 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:44:49 +0000 http://www.21stcentech.com/?p=11830#comment-10379 Though the geophysicists are bright people, I can help thinking that carbon sequestering in the earth will be problematic. how much pressure would the rock be under and how much carbon can you really store if it is in gas form? I would think converting it to something solid and stable (like calcium carbonate) would be a better solution.

A few years ago I did some calculations on the amount of coastline needed to absorb large amounts of CO2 by aquaculture of mollusks. It wasn’t a huge area to cover, and it has pros and cons. The pros being it created a food source and sequestered CO2, the cons, it used up shorelines and I am certain there would be environmental impacts from large scale mollusk farms.

I wish there were simple answers to these questions.

]]>