Oil rigs could pump emissions below North Sea

Posted: August 9, 2019 by oldbrew in Emissions, modelling, research
Tags: ,

North Sea oil platform [image credit: matchtech.com]

Another day, another madcap climate scheme. This one ‘would bring down the costs of storing carbon emissions and postpone expensive decommissioning of North Sea oil and gas infrastructure’, says Phys.org. That’s what the computer model says anyway.

North Sea oil and gas rigs could be modified to pump vast quantities of carbon dioxide emissions into rocks below the seabed, research shows.

Refitting old platforms to act as pumping stations for self-contained CO2 storage sites would be 10 times cheaper than decommissioning the structures, researchers say.

The sites would store emissions generated by natural gas production, and could also be used to lock away CO2 produced by other sources—such as power stations—helping to combat climate change.

Offshore sites

Edinburgh researchers analysed data from the Beatrice oilfield—15 miles off the north east coast of Scotland.

They found that existing platforms could be re-used as storage sites by making minor modifications.

Using a computer model, they worked out that, over a 30-year period, the scheme would be around 10 times cheaper than decommissioning the Beatrice oilfield, which is likely to cost more than £260 million.

“Removing platforms at large expense is short-sighted. Re-using them to dispose of CO2 in rocks several kilometres beneath the seabed will not only be cheaper, but provides a cost-effective means of cutting the UK’s CO2 emissions to meet the 2050 net-zero target,” says Jonathan Scafidi of the School of GeoSciences.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Who fancies a job on a creaky old oil rig miles out in a rough sea?

  2. JB says:

    Artificial shortening of Nature’s recycling processes have not proven to be efficient or inexpensive from what I’ve been reading. Like many product ideas engineers come up with, most of these are not viable or practical. Oil derricks are inherently hazardous pay work, as everyone knows who has been exposed to them. Where are the funds coming from to get men to put stuff back into the ground? Well there’s one limitless basket that always gets plundered….

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    I don’t think it is fair to blame engineers for this.
    Seems to have been dreamt up in an academic Ivory Tower or an Office of underemployed Public Servants (involved in the AGW money flow).

  4. Bob Greene says:

    Yeah, I can see the big avings in separation and compressing CO2 then pumping it through pipelines to the North Sea. Does the UK have a competition for the stupidest ideas?

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    just a bag of hammers looking for some nails

  6. oldbrew says:

    JB – the study is from Edinburgh Uni.

    ‘The study, published in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, was completed as part of the University’s GeoEnergy MSc programme.’

    How about that journal name 🤓

  7. ivan says:

    I can’t help wondering why they would want to put good plant food underground where the plants can’t get at it.

    oldbrew, sarc is the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control an offshoot of the Alchemists Trade Journal by any chance? I assume it has been approved by the UN Church of Climatology bishops. /sarc.

  8. oldbrew says:

    The ‘GHG journal’ may just be a creation of its publisher Elsevier.

    They must still be working on the plan to ‘control’ the main GHG i.e. water vapour. We won’t hold our breath waiting for it 🤣
    – – –
    Water vapor accounts for a whopping 90% or more of Earth’s greenhouse effect!

    90%+ of radiative ‘gases’ anyway.

  9. oldbrew says:

    O/T – COP26: Glasgow chosen to host major UN climate summit in 2020

    If the UK’s bid, in partnership with Italy, is successful, the event will take place at the Scottish Events Campus

    It would be the largest ever summit the UK has hosted, with around 30,000 delegates, including up to 200 world leaders, expected to attend.

    – – –
    And they can all arrive by sail-powered boat from their nearest home port to save on those fearsome aircraft ’emissions’ 😎

    Or ship…

  10. edmh says:

    Why. ??

    It’s just an energy and cost expensive way to throw away small quantities of useful plant food.

  11. Roy Banks says:

    This suggestion was originally put forward in about 2003 as the North Sea started to rundown production so it by no means new. Kinder Morgan the US pipelining company was initially interested but then withdrew. Many studies were made but nothing has, nor do I think will happen. This current study conveniently ignores the very high cost to extract the CO2 from any combustion source, dry it and compress it to 100bars before entering the existing pipeline not designed for CO2 (it won’t like wet CO2!!).
    Can I also ask what about the platform decommission costs that will still be required when the CO2 storage has been completed? Has that been included in their calculations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s