[Mb-civic] The Observer: Seabed supplies a cure for global warming crisis

[harry.sifton at sympatico.ca]

HS spotted this on the The Observer site and thought you should see it.

-------
Note from HS:

Interesting
-------

To see this story with its related links on the The Observer site, go to http://www.observer.co.uk

Seabed supplies a cure for global warming crisis
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday April 24 2005
The Observer


Scientists say they have found the solution to the global warming crisis. They want to bury it. 

They believe millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide could be dumped under the bed of the North Sea to reduce atmospheric warming. And they have selected a key candidate to test the technology: BP's Miller oilfield.  

'Production at the Miller coming to an end, so we have a wonderful opportunity to develop techniques that could control global warming,' said Professor Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at Edinburgh University.  

Under the scheme, carbon dioxide from power stations - instead of being vented into the atmosphere - would be liquefied, pumped back out to the North Sea via a disused gas pipeline and into the Miller field. Five million tonnes a year could be stored there for more then 10,000 years, say researchers.  

BP would gain because the carbon dioxide pumped into the depleted field would help to flush out its last reserves of oil, while Britain would be provided with a sink for its fossil fuel emissions. Global temperatures are now rising at an unprecedented rate. Last week climatologists warned that Antarctic ice fields were collapsing alarmingly while biologists have reported that spring is arriving several days earlier than it did 10 years ago. Carbon dioxide is choking the world, hence interest in the geological storage scheme.  

'The North Sea could store all the carbon dioxide produced over 60 years from power stations in Europe,' Lord Browne, BP's chief executive, recently stated. 'This needs to be tried out and that is what we are looking at - to take an oilfield, close to the end of its life, and use carbon dioxide to enhance recovery ... and make electricity.'  

Although Browne did not state which field BP was investigating, The Observer has learnt the company has chosen the Miller. Not only is production there coming to an end but its rigs and pipes are already fitted with special equipment for dealing with carbon dioxide - because high levels of the gas are found naturally there.  

'This is a once-in-a-decade opportunity,' said Haszeldine. 'We have the right gear in the right place at the right time. If we don't take advantage of it and allow the Miller to be closed down, we will have lost a wonderful chance to conquer global warming.'  

But BP has warned ministers the scheme is currently uneconomic. To make it feasible, the government will have to ease its oil taxes. At present, the Treasury takes £7 from every £10 worth of North Sea oil. BP wants this reduced to £3 for the last Miller oil to make its storage plan viable.  

Under the scheme, natural gas would continue to be fed to the Peterhead power station near Aberdeen. But in future, before being burnt, it would be passed through converters and turned into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.  

The hydrogen would then be burnt, a process that produces steam and heat which would then drive Peterhead's electricity generators. The carbon dioxide would be separated, liquefied and pumped out to the Miller field.  

Deep below ground, the carbon dioxide would then spread out to fill the rock pores that once held oil, and the thick natural layer of impermeable mudstone that caps the field would stop carbon dioxide rising and bubbling back to the seabed.  

Carbon storage is not a new idea. Norway's Statoil has run a scheme in the North Sea for the past eight years while BP has one at its natural gas field in Algeria. But both projects are relatively modest. The Miller scheme is much bigger and could become a pioneer for dozens of other North Sea oil and gas fields as they come off line in the next 20 years.  

Britain is struggling to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Alternative generating schemes - wind or nuclear - have been proposed but are controversial and have technological drawbacks.  

'Wind turbines are useless in still conditions while nuclear plants cannot meet sudden jumps in energy demand,' said Haszeldine. 'But coal and oil plants can be turned on and off quickly. Unfortunately they emit carbon dioxide. That is why the scheme is important. It gives us a chance - now - to start to balance the ways we generate power while still keeping our commitments in the battle against climate change.' 

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited